DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3 are pending and currently under review.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 7/21/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3 remain(s) pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 4/21/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kami et al. (US 2011/0284137).
Regarding claim 1, Kami et al. discloses a steel sheet made by performing reheating of a steel composition as seen in table 1 below, followed by finish hot rolling at 750 degrees C or higher at a reduction ratio of 40% or more, followed by cooling down to 650 degrees C at a rate of 10 to 80 degrees C per second [abstract, 0002, 0092-0118, 0125-0146]. Kami et al. further teaches a microstructure of ferrite at the steel center and surface, wherein upper bainite can be included as a secondary phase in an amount of 2 percent of less [abstract, 0038, 0055]. The examiner notes that the manufacturing, composition, and microstructure of Kami et al. further overlap with the claimed ranges. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Kami et al. does not expressly teach CLR values or strength variation values as claimed. However, the examiner submits that similar, overlapping values of these properties would have naturally flowed from the prior art disclosure. One of ordinary skill would readily recognize that steel properties are a direct result of steel composition, microstructure, and processing. Since Kami et al. discloses an overlapping steel composition, microstructure, and manufacturing method as already explained above, similar overlapping values of CLR and strength variation would have naturally flowed. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I). The examiner’s position is further bolstered by the express teaching of Kami et al. that cracking (ie. CLR) is suppressed, and furthermore because Kami et al. does not teach any steps or considerations that would cause nonuniformity/fluctuations in the steel [0096, 0099, 0102].
Table 1.
Element (wt.%)
Claim 1 (wt.%)
Kami et al. (wt.%)
C
0.02 – 0.06
0.02 – 0.08
Si
0.1 – 0.5
0.1 – 0.5
Mn
0.8 – 1.8
0.5 – 1.8
P
0 – 0.03
0 – 0.025
S
0 – 0.003
0 – 0.005
Al
0 – 0.06
0.005 – 0.1
N
0 – 0.01
0 – 0.005
Nb
0.01 – 0.08
0.01 – 0.1
Ti
0.005 – 0.05
0.001 – 0.05
Ca
0.0005 – 0.005
0.0005 – 0.005
Cr+Mo
0.1 – 0.4
0 – 1.5
At least one of
Ni
Cr
Mo
V
0.05 – 0.3
0.05 – 0.3
0.02 – 0.2
0.005 – 0.1
– 0.5
0.01 – 1
0.01 – 0.5
0.01 – 0.1
Fe & Impurities
Balance
Balance
Regarding claim 2, Kami et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Kami et al. further teaches slab reheating at 1100 to 1300 degrees C [0128]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, Kami et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). As stated above, Kami et al. teaches a reduction ratio of 40% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range [0128]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kami et al. (US 2015/0176110, herein referred to as Kami et al. (‘110)) alone or alternatively further in view of Goto et al. (US 2015/0368736).
Regarding claim 1, Kami et al. (‘110) discloses a steel sheet made by performing reheating of a steel composition as seen in table 2 below, followed by finish hot rolling at 800 to 1050 degrees C at a reduction ratio of 20% or more, followed by cooling down from a range of 650 to 750 degrees C at a rate of 20 degrees C per second or faster to a cooling stop temperature BFS or lower which corresponds to less than approximately 650 degrees C [abstract, 0110-0131, table2, 5]. Kami et al. (‘110) further teaches a microstructure of ferrite as a main phase throughout the steel (ie. at the surface and center), wherein upper bainite is not expressly taught such that one of ordinary skill would understand upper bainite to not be present absent a specific teaching to the contrary [0163]. The examiner notes that the manufacturing, composition, and microstructure of Kami et al. (‘110) further overlap with the claimed ranges. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Kami et al. (‘110) further teaches strength uniformity in the longitudinal direction of the steel such that a variation in tensile strength along the longitudinal direction is 35 MPa or lower [0094, 0177]. The examiner notes that any two points along a longitudinal direction meet the limitation of front and rear portion, respectively. Kami et al. does not expressly teach uniformity of yield strength; however, one of ordinary skill would understand that tensile strength and yield strength are directly related such that uniform tensile strength would also equate to uniform yield strength.
Kami et al. (‘110) does not expressly teach CLR values or alternatively further does not teach yield strength variation values as claimed. However, the examiner submits that similar, overlapping values of these properties would have naturally flowed from the prior art disclosure. One of ordinary skill would readily recognize that steel properties are a direct result of steel composition, microstructure, and processing. Since Kami et al. (‘110) discloses an overlapping steel composition, microstructure, and manufacturing method as already explained above, similar overlapping values of CLR and yield strength variation would have naturally flowed. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I). The examiner’s position is further bolstered by the express teaching of Kami et al. (‘110) that cracking (ie. CLR) is suppressed, and furthermore because Kami et al. (‘110) does not teach any steps or considerations that would cause nonuniformity/fluctuations in the steel [0113, 0116, 0119].
Alternatively, Kami et al. (‘110) does not expressly teach a CLR value as claimed. Goto et al. discloses that it is known to control CLR to be less than 5 percent by controlling steel composition such that desirable HIC performance can be achieved [0072]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Kami et al. (‘110) by limiting CLR to be less than 5 percent to achieve desirable HIC performance as taught by Goto et al. The examiner notes that the CLR range of Goto et al. overlaps with that as claimed. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Table 2.
Element (wt.%)
Claim 1 (wt.%)
Kami et al. (‘110) (wt.%)
C
0.02 – 0.06
0.02 – 0.08
Si
0.1 – 0.5
0.01 – 0.5
Mn
0.8 – 1.8
0.5 – 1.8
P
0 – 0.03
0 – 0.025
S
0 – 0.003
0 – 0.005
Al
0 – 0.06
0.005 – 0.1
N
0 – 0.01
0 – 0.005
Nb
0.01 – 0.08
0.01 – 0.1
Ti
0.005 – 0.05
0.001 – 0.05
Ca
0.0005 – 0.005
0.0005 – 0.05
Cr+Mo
0.1 – 0.4
0 – 1.5
At least one of
Ni
Cr
Mo
V
0.05 – 0.3
0.05 – 0.3
0.02 – 0.2
0.005 – 0.1
– 0.5
– 1
– 0.5
0.01 – 0.1
Fe & Impurities
Balance
Balance
Regarding claim 2, Kami et al. (‘110) discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Kami et al. further teaches slab reheating at 1100 to 1300 degrees C [0147]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, Kami et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). As stated above, Kami et al. teaches a reduction ratio of 20% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range [0153]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
The previous 102 rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/2026 regarding the 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that overlap in composition or processing is not sufficient to establish inherency. In response, it is noted that the overlap in composition or overlap in processing alone was never relied upon in the previous rejections (emphasis added). Rather, Kami et al. discloses all of an overlapping steel composition, method of manufacturing, and microstructure as explained above, such that overlapping properties would have naturally flowed absent concrete evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2144.05(I) & MPEP 2112. Therefore, the examiner cannot concur with applicant’s mere conclusory remarks absent concrete evidence to the contrary which has not been presented.
Applicant’s arguments are further moot in view of the new grounds of rejection based on Kami et al. (‘110) above.
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 NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights