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 Previous Rejection
102/103 rejection over Kim are withdrawn from previous office action of 10/10/2025.
Two new grounds of rejections are rendered in view of amendment of claim 1.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 are pending. Claims 1-3 are amended and presented for this examination. Claims 4-6 are withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 01/27/2026 and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US20180355453A1).
As for claims 1-2, Seo discloses ultra-high strength at TS>=1000 MPa ([0093]) and yield ratio of >=0.8 ([0092]) steel sheet comprising broad range of elemental compositions overlapping instant claim 1 required ranges as illustrated in Table 2 below.
Table 2
Element
Applicant
(weight %)
Seo et al.
(weight %)
Broad ranges
[0026]-[0077]
Overlap/Within
(weight %)
C
0.05-0.13
0.08-0.2
0.08-0.13
Si
0.01-0.5
0.05-1.3
0.05-0.5
Mn
0.8-2
2-3
2
Cr
0.005-1.2
0.3-1.2
0.3-1.2
Mo
0.001-0.5
0.01-0.2
0.01-0.2
P
0.001-0.02
0.001-0.1
0.001-0.02
S
0.001-0.01
<=0.01
0.001-0.01
Al
0.01-0.1
0.01-0.1
0.01-0.1
N
0.001-0.01
0.001-0.1
0.001-0.01
Ti
0.01-0.05
0.01-0.05
0.01-0.05
Nb
0.001-0.03
0.01-0.05
0.01-0.05
V
0.001-0.2
0.01-0.2
0.01-0.2
B
0.0003-0.003
0.001-0.003
0.001-0.003
K value
>=-1.05
G value
2-20
Martensite (%)
60-80
50-80 [0084]
60-80
Bainite(%)
20-40
10-30 [0084]
20-30
Ferrite (%)
<=5
<=20 [0089]
<=5
Yield Ratio
>=0.8
>=0.8
>=0.8
TS (Claim 2)
MPa
>=950
>=1000
>=1000
With respect to instant claim 1 required K and G values, it is well settled that there is no invention in the discovery of a general formula if it covers a composition described in the prior art, in re Cooper and Foley 1943 C.D. 357, 553 O.G. 177; 57 USPQ 117, Taklatwalla v. Marburg, 620 O.G. 685, 1949 C.D. 77, and In re Pilling, 403 O.G. 513, 44 F(2) 878, 1931 C.D. 75. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the selection of the proportions of elements would appear to require no more than routine investigation by those ordinary skilled in the art. In re Austin, et al., 149 USPQ 685, 688.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (EP3730648A1).
As for claims 1-2, Kim discloses high strength steel sheet having excellent impact resistance. Table 1 (paragraph [0055]) Steel IS1 having every elemental composition, microstructure close to amended martensite and bainite % and TS within claimed ranges as illustrated in Table 1 below. Using same Steel IS1 disclosed TS and YS, yield ratio (YS/TS) is calculated to be within claimed range as illustrated in Table 1 below.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
It should also be noted Kim discloses broad range of tempered martensite is 80% or more and suggest 20% or less of bainite. Hence, 80% or more of TM and 20% or less of bainite both overlaps instant claim 1 amended TM% and bainite %.
As for claim 3, Instant claimed required TS at 400-600 deg. C is product by process limitation in a product claim.
When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113.
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. In the instant case, how TS changes with heating temperature does not patentably distinct from prior art’s steel sheet.
Table 1
Element
Applicant
(weight %)
Kim et al.
(weight %)
Inventive Steel IS1
of Table 1 and 3
Within
(weight %)
C
0.05-0.13
0.08
0.08
Si
0.01-0.5
0.2
0.2
Mn
0.8-2
1.5
1.5
Cr
0.005-1.2
0.75
0.75
Mo
0.001-0.5
0.13
0.13
P
0.001-0.02
0.007
0.007
S
0.001-0.01
0.003
0.003
Al
0.01-0.1
0.03
0.03
N
0.001-0.01
0.004
0.004
Ti
0.01-0.05
0.02
0.02
Nb
0.001-0.03
0.002
0.002
V
0.001-0.2
0.005
0.005
B
0.0003-0.003
0.002
0.002
K value
>=-1.05
-1.0057
-1.0057
G value
2-20
3.54
3.54
Martensite (%)
60-80
83
83 is close to amended 80%
Bainite(%)
20-40
17
17 is close to amended 20%
Ferrite (%)
<=5
0
0
Yield Ratio
>=0.8
0.919
0.919
TS (Claim 2)
MPa
>=950
992
992
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (EP3730648A1) and evidenced by TensileMill (NPL document “The impact of Specimen’s Temperature on Tensile testing Results”)
As for claim 3, how TS after a heat treatment at 400-600 deg. C is a future mechanical property of claimed product. Hence, such future mechanical property does not patentably distinct from Kim steel sheet.
TensileMill further evidences that at higher temperatures, tensile strength typically decreases due to increased atomic mobility and intermolecular bond weakening. (Page 6 Section “Measurements Affected by Temperature in Tensile Testing”)
That is, TensileMill suggests TS decreases with increasing temperature is well known in the art.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo and evidenced by TensileMill (NPL document “The impact of Specimen’s Temperature on Tensile testing Results”)
As for claim 3, it is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 2 over Kim and TensileMill above.
Response to Argument
In response to applicant’s argument filed on 01/09/2026 that IS1 of Kim shows 83% of TM and 17% of B which cannot anticipate instant claim 1 amended TM and B %, argument is moot since 102 anticipatory rejections over Kim is withdrawn. However, 103 rejection over Kim is maintained because examiner takes the positions that 83% of TM still is close to amended 60-80% absent criticality of amended TM% range. Likewise, 17% of B still is close to amended 20-40% absent criticality of amended B% range. In addition, Kim teaches broad range of 80% or more of TM and 20% or less B which still overlap claimed TM% and B% as indicated in 103 rejections over Kim above.
Last, newly cited Seo discloses wide overlapping TM% and B% as required by amendment. Seo also explicitly discloses claimed TS and YR.
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