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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-27 are pending. Claims 1-12 and 18-27 are presented for this examination. Claims 13-17 are withdrawn. Claims 25-27 are newly added.
Status of Previous Rejection
All art rejections are maintained from previous office action of 10/08/2025.
A new ground of art rejection is rendered in view of amendment of 04/08/2026.
112 2nd paragraph rejections are withdrawn in view of amendment of 04/08/2026.
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) 1-2, 4-12 and 18-19, 21-22, 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ariga (US20130087252A1).
As for claims 1-2, 4-12 and 18-19, 21-22, 24-27, it is noted instant claims 1, 18, 21 are amended to require YS>490 MPa.
Ariga discloses a high strength hot rolled steel sheet having overlapping composition, YS, TiC particle size and hole expansion ratio as indicated in Table 2 below.
Table 2
Element
Applicant
(weight %)
Ariga et al.
(weight %)
Overlap
(weight %)
C
0.045-0.06
0.005-0.05
0.045-0.05
Mn
0.75-1.2
<=0.8
0.75-0.8
Al
0.02-0.04
<=0.06
0.02-0.04
Ti
0.075-0.12
0.05-0.1
0.075-0.1
YS (MPa)
>=490
Minimum of less than 590
HER (%)
>=60
>=100
>=100
TIC size
(nm)
<10
<10
<10
TiC size
(nm)
(Claims 2,19, 22)
3-7
<10
3-7
HER (%)
(Claims 4, 24)
>=70
>=100
>=100
TS (MPa)
(Claim 5)
>=570
>=590
>=590
Nb
(Claim 6)
<0.4
<0.1
<0.1
With respect to amended YS, the fact Ariga discloses TS>=590 MPa suggests minimum YS is less than 590 which overlaps amended >=490 MPa. minimum YS being less than 590 MPa also overlaps instant new claims 25-27 required 500-590 MPa absent criticality of claimed YS range.
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.
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, it is noted instant claims 1, 18, 21 are amended to require YS>490 MPa.
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.
With respect to amended YS, the fact Kakiuchi discloses YS>=MPa still overlaps amended YS>=490 MPa absent criticality of YS claimed range.
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
<10
<=12
<10
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
Claim(s) 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakiuchi (JP2017008367A) in view of Box_Annealing (NPL document “Box Annealing: Essential Heat Treatment Process for Steel Softening” and APA (Applicant’s prior art).
As for claims 25-27, Kakiuchi does not discloses YS as claimed.
Box_Annealing evidences that box annealing is primarily used to soften steel, improve machinability, enhance formability, and relieve internal stresses. The process creates a more uniform and refined grain structure while reducing hardness and increasing ductility, which suggests reduced YS by box annealing to enhance formability.
APA further evidences that YS >490 MPa (instant application [0004]) is well known in the art.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to apply box annealing to reduce YS to a well-known YS>490 MPa as suggested by Box_annealing and APA, in the high strength steel sheet product of Kakiuchi for the benefit of soften steel, improve machinability, enhance formability, and relieve internal stresses.
Response to Argument
Applicant's argument filed on 04/08/2026 is considered but is not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant first argus instant products are precipitation strengthened by ultrafine TIC particles to YS 490-590 MPa and do not require high Si taught by Kakiuch that provides primary solid solution strengthening. Such argument is completely incommensurate in scope of claims 1, 18 and 21 which does not (emphasis added) recite “precipitation strengthened by ultrafine TIC particles to YS 490-590 MPa” at all. Second, reduction of YS by box annealing is well known in the art. YS>490 MPa is also well known in the art.
Applicant then argues new claims 25-27 recited maximum YS of 590 Ma while Kakiuch teaches minimum YS of 700 MPa. Argument is moot since rejection of new claims 25-27 now relies on combination of Kakiuchi in view of Box_Annealing and APA. That is, reduction of YS by box annealing is well known in the art. YS>490 MPa is also well known in the art. Second, newly cited Ariga discloses minimum TS of 590 MPa which suggests minimum YS is lower than 590 MPa which therefore overlaps YS range of new claims 25-27 absent criticality of YS range.
Applicant is invited to submit demonstrating criticality of YS 500-590 MPa.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights