DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/10/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (US 2015/0013856), hereinafter “Murakami.”
Regarding claim 1, Murakami teaches a hot stamped product comprising a base steel sheet, the base steel sheet comprising, in mass%, C: 0.15-0.5%, Si: 0.2-3%, Mn: 0.5-3%, P: 0.05% or less, S: 0.05% or less, Cr: 1% or less, B: 0.0002-0.01%, Ti: 0.0134-0.134%, one or more of additive elements including V and Nb: 0.1% or less, and a balance of Fe and inevitable impurities (Abstract, [0003], [0016]-[0024], [0026]), which satisfies or overlaps with the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Murakami teaches wherein the base steel sheet comprises a martensite structure in which a plurality of lath structures is distributed ([0027], [0059]). Murakami further teaches wherein its hot stamped part further comprises fine precipitates distributed in the base steel sheet, wherein the fine precipitates may be Ti-containing precipitates such as TiC (Abstract, [0025], [0050]). Murakami additionally teaches that the Ti-containing precipitates may have an average diameter or 6 nm or less, preferably 5 nm or less, more preferably 3 nm or less ([0051]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 0.0051-0.0060 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Murakami does not explicitly teach that its hot stamped part has wherein an average interval between a plurality off laths is 160 nm to 200 nm, wherein in an indentation strain rate with respect to an indentation depth of 200 nm to 600 nm observed in a nano indentation test, a number of indentation dynamic strain aging (DSA) is 29 to 37, wherein a V-bending angle of the hot-stamped part is equal to or greater than 53⁰, and wherein a number of fine precipitates distributed per unit area of 100 µm2 is 9.954 to 18,920, as required by claim 1. However, Murakami teaches a hot stamped part with an overlapping chemical composition and the same microstructure as instantly claimed, and further teaches that its part is made by hot stamping (Abstract, [0003], [0015]), which is the same process used described p. 14 ln. 16-18 of the instant specification. Thus, as Murakami teaches a hot stamped part having an overlapping chemical composition, the same microstructure as instantly claimed, and is produced by the same process, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the hot stamped part of Murakami to have wherein an average interval between a plurality off laths is 160 nm to 200 nm, wherein in an indentation strain rate with respect to an indentation depth of 200 nm to 600 nm observed in a nano indentation test, a number of indentation dynamic strain aging (DSA) is 29 to 37, wherein a V-bending angle of the hot-stamped part is equal to or greater than 53⁰, and wherein a number of fine precipitates distributed per unit area of 100 µm2 is 9.954 to 18,920. In the case where “the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” See MPEP §2112.01.
Regarding claims 7-8, Murakami teaches that the Ti-containing precipitates may have an average diameter or 6 nm or less, preferably 5 nm or less, more preferably 3 nm or less ([0051]), which reads on claims 7-8, assuming a Gaussian/normal distribution where 50% of the particles are below the mean. Alternatively, as Murakami teaches a hot stamped part having an overlapping chemical composition, the same microstructure as instantly claimed, and is produced by the same process, as discussed above regarding claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the hot stamped part of Murakami to meet the limitations recited in claims 7-8. In the case where “the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” See MPEP §2112.01.
Regarding claim 10, Murakami teaches that its hot stamped part may have a tensile strength of 1470 MPa or more, or 1800 MPa or more ([0078]).
Regarding claim 11, Murakami does not explicitly teach the feature claimed. However, as Murakami teaches a hot stamped part having an overlapping chemical composition, the same microstructure as instantly claimed, and is produced by the same process, as discussed above regarding claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the hot stamped part of Murakami to meet the limitation recited in claim 11. In the case where “the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” See MPEP §2112.01.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Murakami does not teach, disclose, or suggest the features of wherein an average interval between a plurality off laths is 160 nm to 200 nm, wherein in an indentation strain rate with respect to an indentation depth of 200 nm to 600 nm observed in a nano indentation test, a number of indentation dynamic strain aging (DSA) is 29 to 37, wherein a V-bending angle of the hot-stamped part is equal to or greater than 53⁰, wherein a number of fine precipitates distributed per unit area of 100 µm2 is 9.954 to 18,920, and wherein an average fine-precipitate diameter of 0.0051-0.0060 µm. Applicant argues that the Office Actions rationale amounts to unsupported speculation and impermissible hindsight.
In response, Examiner notes that Murakami teaches a hot stamped part having an overlapping chemical composition, the same microstructure as instantly claimed, and is produced by the same process, as discussed above regarding claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the hot stamped part of Murakami to meet the limitation recited in claim 11. In the case where “the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” See MPEP §2112.01.
In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant further argues that the currently amended Ti content of 0.025-0.042 wt% are critical and yield unexpected results with respect to martensite lath interval, TiC-based fine-precipitate density and average size, indentation DSA number, and V-bending angle, citing Table 2 of the instant specification. In response, Examiner notes that the cited examples do not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate criticality of the claimed Ti content. Objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. See MPEP §716.02. “To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range.” See MPEP §716.02(d).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY M LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0483. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY M LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734