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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 and 18-24 in the reply filed on 09/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-24 are pending. Claims 1-12 and 18-24 are presented for this examination. Claims 13-17 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “low alloy steel sheet” in claims 1, 18 and 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “substantially ferritic microstructure” in claims 1, 18 and 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of “substantially”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In addition, it is unclear what “having a substantially ferritic microstructure” intends to convey as to whether it means almost 100% ferritic microstructure or something else.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the slabs" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In addition, “wherein the steel sheet is produced hot rolling the slabs….” Is unclear as there appears to be a word “by” between “produced” and “hot rolling”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the steel slab" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the hot rolled strip" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As a result of rejected independent claims, all dependent claims are also rejected under the same statue.
Claim Interpretations
Instant independent claims 1, 18 and 21 required produced by a continuous strip process, cold rolling and batching annealing are product by process limitations in a product claim.
According to MPEP 2113, determination of patentability of product is based on the product itself. That is, the patentability of product does not depend on its method of production unless the process of making the claimed product imparts any structural and/or functional limitation and characteristic on the claimed product. Hence, examiner takes the position if cited prior art discloses microstructure and mechanical properties and nano Tic precipitates, product by process limitations are not given patentable distinction over prior art.
Same interpretation is applied to dependent claims 7-12. That is, limitations in dependent claims 7-12 are product by process limitations in a product claim. Hence, they are not given patentable distinction over prior art.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakiuchi (JP2017008367A).
As for claims 1-12 and 18-24, Kakiuchi discloses a high strength steel sheet excellent in weldability and moldability. (Title) The steel sheet includes ferrite over 95% in area ratio which meets claimed substantially ferritic microstructure. Table 1 below illustrates overlapping composition, YS, TiC size and hole expansion ratio. In view of TiC size is more preferably 12 nm or less (English translation Page 4 paragraph 2 last line), it meets instant claim 1 required nano TiC precipitate. Broad range of Nb 0.02-0.3% (Abstract) overlaps instant claim 18 required 0.04%% Nb. Broad range of YS>=700 MPa also meets instant claim 21 required YS at least 550 MPa.
Instant claims 7-12 are product by process limitation in a product claim. Hence, they are not given patentable distinction over prior art according to claim interpretation above.
Table 1
Element
Applicant
(weight %)
Kakiuchi et al.
(weight %)
Overlap
(weight %)
C
0.045-0.06
0.02-0.08
0.045-0.06
Mn
0.75-1.2
0.2-1.8
0.75-1.2
Al
0.02-0.04
0.001-0.1
0.02-0.04
Ti
0.075-0.12
0.02-0.3
0.075-0.12
YS (MPa)
>=500
>=700
>=700
HER (%)
>=60
>=70
>=70
TiC size
(nm)
(Claims 2,19, 22)
3-7
<=12
3-7
C
Mn
Ti
(Claims 3, 20, 23)
0.06
1.1
0.12
0.02-0.08
0.2-1.8
0.02-0.3
0.06
1.1
0.12
HER (%)
(Claims 4, 24)
>=70
>=70
>=70
TS (MPa)
(Claim 5)
>=570
>=780
>=780
Nb
(Claim 6)
<0.4
0.02-0.3
0.02-0.3
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNY R WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5515. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNY R WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733