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 .
Election Acknowledged
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 15-21, in the reply filed on 12/31/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that Chen (EP 3421629 (A1) does not disclose residual austenite and alpha ferrite having the proportions and grain sizes recited in claim 15.
This is not found persuasive because Chen discloses that the steel may contain retained austenite (residual austenite) in an amount of 5-50 vol.% (para. [0014]), which encompasses the claimed range of 8-30%. The grain size of the retained austenite is at most 5 µm (para. [0010] – lines 20-21; para. [0013]), which encompasses the claimed range.
With respect to the alpha ferrite, Chen teaches that the sum of δ-ferrite and α-ferrite (alpha ferrite) is at least 50 vol.% and has a maximum ranging from 50% to 95% by volume (para. [0014]), with δ-ferrite (delta ferrite) being at least 20 vol.% and having a suitable maximum of 80 vol.% (para. [0010] – lines 21-22; para. [0014], [0016]). If the sum of δ-ferrite and α-ferrite were 75 vol.% and δ-ferrite were 70 vol.%, for example, it follows that α-ferrite would be 5 vol.%, which falls within the claimed range. The grain size of the α-ferrite is also disclosed as being less than 5 µm (para. [0013]), which encompasses the claimed range. Thus, Chen discloses all limitations claimed.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 15-29 are pending. Of the pending claims, claims 15-21 are presented for examination on the merits, and claims 22-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
Two (2) information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were submitted on 07/07/2023 and 01/07/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the formula for the kappa precipitates, the number “3” and the letter “x” should be in the form of subscripts, consistent with the formula at para. [0027] of the specification as originally filed.
Additionally, the abbreviation of aluminum (Al) appears as capital letter A and capital letter I (eye). The letter I (eye) should be a lowercase l (elle), consistent with the Periodic Table of Elements and the formula at para. [0027] of the specification as originally filed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3421629 (A1) to Chen et al. (“Chen”).
Regarding claims 15-20, Chen discloses a high-strength steel that has been cold rolled and annealed (cold rolled and annealed steel sheet). Abstract; para. [0010], [0039]. The steel includes the following elements in percent by weight (para. [0010], [0017]-[0021], [0024]-[0026]):
Element
Claim 15
EP 3421629 A1
Carbon (C)
0.12 ≤ carbon ≤ 0.25
0.05 - 0.50
Manganese (Mn)
3 ≤ manganese ≤ 10
0.50 - 8.0
Aluminum (Al)
3.5 ≤ aluminum ≤ 6.5
0.05 - 6.0
Phosphorus (P)
0 ≤ phosphorus ≤ 0.1
0 - 0.1
Sulfur (S)
0 ≤ sulfur ≤ 0.03
0 - 0.01
Nitrogen (N)
0 ≤ nitrogen ≤ 0.1
5 - 100 ppm (0.0005 - 0.0100)
Fe & unavoidable impurities
balance
remainder
The microstructure contains δ-ferrite (delta ferrite) in an amount of at least 20 vol.% and a suitable maximum of 80 vol.% (para. [0010] – lines 21-22; para. [0014], [0016]), which overlaps the claimed range.
The sum of δ-ferrite and α-ferrite (alpha ferrite) is at least 50 vol.% and has a maximum ranging from 50% to 95% by volume. Para. [0014]. If the sum of δ-ferrite and α-ferrite were 75 vol.% and δ-ferrite were 70 vol.%, for example, it follows that α-ferrite would be 5 vol.%, which falls within the claimed range. The grain size of the α-ferrite is less than 5 µm (para. [0013]), which encompasses the claimed range.
The steel may contain retained austenite (residual austenite) in an amount of 5-50 vol.% (para. [0014]), which encompasses the claimed range. The grain size of the retained austenite is at most 5 µm (para. [0010] – lines 20-21; para. [0013]), which encompasses the claimed range.
(Volume differs from area by a thickness or height dimension; therefore, a two-dimensional slice of Chen’s three-dimensional volume would yield microstructural quantities corresponding to area percentages of the same proportional values.)
As long as aluminum is not excessively added, κ-carbides (kappa carbides) are not formed. Para. [0019]. Controlling the cooling rate also avoids formation of coarse κ-carbides and other carbides. Para. [0036]. This suggests that κ-carbides are minimized or close to zero, which falls within the claimed range.
Chen does not expressly characterize their steels as “low density.” However, Chen’s steels are expected to be relatively low in density given their high proportions of relatively light elements like manganese and aluminum. In addition, the chemical composition and alloying elements match those of the claimed invention. Thus, a claimed property, such as density, is presumed to be inherent. See MPEP § 2112.01.
The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select from among the prior art ranges because there is utility over an entire range disclosed in the prior art.
Regarding claim 21, Chen discloses that the cold-rolled steel may have a metallic coating. Para. [0047].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA T. LUK whose telephone number is (571)270-3587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
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 D. Hendricks, can be reached at 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 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.
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
February 07, 2026
Prosecution Insights