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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant has elected Invention I (claims 10-21) for the further prosecution without travers; Claims 22-29 have been withdrawn as non-elected claims; Claims 10-21 remain for Examination, wherein claim 10 is an independent claim.
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 10-21 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In the instant case, 1) the instant claim 10 indicates: “a value obtained by dividing an average C content (by mass%) of retained austenite with an aspect ratio of 2.0 or more by an average C content (by mass%) of retained austenite with an aspect ratio of 3.0 or more”, however, there is no specific value has been included in the instant claim. Since there is no specific amount of retained austenite with an aspect ratio of 2.0 or more and retained austenite with an aspect ratio of 3.0 or more in the instant claims, this limitation need further clarification/amendment; 2) the term “C content of a T0 composition” in claim 10 is unclear which renders the claim indefinite. It is noted that par.[0087] of PG-Pub 2024/0167127 A1, corresponding to the instant specification indicates that: “The C content of the T0 composition can be calculated unambiguously from the composition of steel and its content using integrated thermodynamic calculation software Thermo-Calc and database TCFE7. The T0 composition for calculation is the composition calculated at the reheating temperature before immersion in a galvanizing bath.” This definition should be added to the instant claim. Since Claims 11-21 depend on claim 10, they are also rejected. Proper amendment is necessary.
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 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.
Claims 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al (US-PG-pub 2017/0218472 A1, thereafter PG’472).
Regarding claim 10, PG’472 teaches a high-strength steel sheet having a tensile strength (TS) of 780 MPa or more and excellent in ductility, fatigue properties, stretch flange-ability, surface characteristics, and sheet passage ability that can be obtained by providing a predetermined chemical composition and a steel microstructure (Abstract, Examples, and claims of PG’472). The comparison between the claimed alloy composition ranges, microstructures, and those disclosed by the working Example #N in tables of PG’472 has been listed in following table. All of the alloy composition ranges including Ratio of Mn in RA and Mn in sheet disclosed by the working Example #N in tables of PG’472 are within the claimed ranges. PG’472 provides microstructures for the Example #N in table 3 with Fresh M: 5.5; and RA: 20.2, which are within the claimed fresh M, and RA ranges. PG’472 specify adjusting ferrite in range: 20-50 are% and adjusting TM + B in range 10-40 are% (Abstract, claim 1, par.[0062]-[0070] of PG’472), which overlaps the claimed ferrite and B + TM ranges. Overlapping in microstructure ranges creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the microstructure including ferrite and TM + B as disclosed in PG’472 since PG’472 teaches the same high-strength steel sheet as claimed throughout whole disclosing range. The C content in retained austenite over C amount in T0 composition (calculated) is recognized as a material feature fully depended on the alloy composition and alloy microstructures. PG’472 teaches the same alloy composition with similar microstructures as discussed above, the claimed ratio of The C content in retained austenite over C amount in T0 composition would be highly expected in the alloy of PG’472. MPEP 2112 01 and 2145 II.
Element
From instant Claim 10 (mass %)
From #N in table 1 of PG’472 (mass %)
Overlapping range
(mass %)
C
0.03-0.25
0.204
0.204
Si
0.01-3
1.37
1.37
Mn
2.00-8.00
2.2
2.2
P
0.100 or less
0.019
0.019
S
0.0200 or less
0.0023
0.0023
N
0.0100 or less
0.0036
0.0036
Al
0.001-2.000
0.390
0.390
Fe
Balance +impurities
Balance +impurities
Balance +impurities
Microstructure
Area%
F: 1-40
Fresh M: 1-20
TB+TM: 35-90;
RA: 6 or more
F: 40.2
Adjusting: 20-50
Fresh M: 5.5
B+TM: 29.6
Adjusting: 10-40
RA: 20.2
F: close to 40
Overlapping: F:20-40
Fresh M: 5.5
Overlapping TB+TM:
35-40
RA: 20.2
Ratio of Mn in RA and Mn in sheet
1.1 or more
2.98/2.0=1.35
1.35
From Claim 11 (mass%)
At least one from group consisting of
Ti: 0.200 or less;
Nb: 1.000 or less;
V: 0.500 or less;
W: : 0.500 or less;
B: 0.0050 or less;
Ni: 1.000 or less;
Cr: 1.000 or less;
Mo: 1.000 or less;
Cu: 1.000 or less:
Sn: 0.200 or less;
Sb: 0.200 or less;
Ta: 0.100 or less;
Zr: 0.200 or less;
Ca: 0.0050 or less;
Mg: 0.0050 or less;
REM: 0.0050 or less
Optional elements including:
Ti, Nb, B, Cr, Cu, Sb, Sn, Ta, Ca, Mg, and REM (cl.1)
Optional elements including:
Ti, Nb, B, Cr, Cu, Sb, Sn, Ta, Ca, Mg, and REM
From claims 12-13
From PG’472
Overlapping range
Ratio of RA/(RA+F)
0.5 or less
About 0.42
About 0.42
From claims 14-17
From PG’472
Surface layer
Galvanized layer
Galvanized layer(par.0033] and cl.4)
Reads on
From Claims 18-21
From PG’472
Surface layer
Galvannealed layer
Galvannealed treatment (par.0033] and cl.4)
Reads on
Regarding claim 12, PG’472 indicates further including Ti: 0.005% or more and 0.100% or less, Nb: 0.005% or more and 0.100% or less, B: 0.0001% or more and 0.0050% or less, Cr: 0.05% or more and 1.00% or less, Cu: 0.05% or more and 1.00% or less, Sb: 0.0020% or more and 0.2000% or less, Sn: 0.0020% or more and 0.2000% or less, Ta: 0.0010% or more and 0.1000% or less, Ca: 0.0003% or more and 0.0050% or less, Mg: 0.0003% or more and 0.0050% or less, and REM: 0.0003% or more and 0.0050% or less, which reads on the claimed optional elements as claimed in the instant claim.
Regarding claims 12-13, the ratio of RA/(RA+F) from the Example #N in table 3 of PG’472 is about 0.42, which reads on the claimed limitation.
Regarding claims 14-21, PG’472 specify forming a galvanized layer (par.0033] and cl.4) and perform galvannealed treatment (par.0033] and cl.4), which reads on the claimed limitation in the instant claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 10-21 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 13-32 of co-pending application No. 18/863164 (US-PG-pub 2025/0290185 A1).
Regarding instant Claims 10-21, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other because Claims 13-32 of co-pending application No. 18/863164 (US-PG-pub 2025/0290185 A1) teaches the same steel sheet. All of the essential alloy composition ranges and microstructure phases disclosed by Claims 13-32 of co-pending application No. 18/863164 (US-PG-pub 2025/0290185 A1) overlaps the claimed ranges, which creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPERP 2144 05 I. Since the Mn in retained austenite and C in retained austenite are recognized as a material features fully depended on the alloy composition and alloy microstructures. Claims 13-32 of co-pending application No. 18/863164 (US-PG-pub 2025/0290185 A1) teaches the similar alloy composition with similar microstructures as claimed in the instant claims, the claimed ratios related to the Mn and C contents in retained austenite over C amount in T0 composition would be highly expected in the alloy of Claims 13-32 of co-pending application No. 18/863164 (US-PG-pub 2025/0290185 A1). MPEP 2112 01 and 2145 II. Thus, no patentable distinction was found in the instant claims compared with Claims 13-32 of co-pending application No. 18/863164 (US-PG-pub 2025/0290185 A1).
This is a provisional ODP rejection since the conflict claims in the co-pending application has not in fact been patented.
Claims 10-21 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-18 of co-pending application No. 18/727246 (US-PG-pub 2025/0084515 A1).
Regarding instant Claims 10-21, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other because Claims 1-18 of co-pending application No. 18/727246 (US-PG-pub 2025/0084515 A1) teaches the same steel sheet. All of the essential alloy composition ranges and microstructure phases disclosed by Claims 1-18 of co-pending application No. 18/727246 (US-PG-pub 2025/0084515 A1) overlaps the claimed ranges, which creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPERP 2144 05 I. Since the Mn in retained austenite and C in retained austenite are recognized as a material features fully depended on the alloy composition and alloy microstructures. Claims 1-18 of co-pending application No. 18/727246 (US-PG-pub 2025/0084515 A1) teaches the similar alloy composition with similar microstructures as claimed in the instant claims, the claimed ratios related to the Mn and C contents in retained austenite over C amount in T0 composition would be highly expected in the alloy of Claims 1-18 of co-pending application No. 18/727246 (US-PG-pub 2025/0084515 A1). MPEP 2112 01 and 2145 II. Thus, no patentable distinction was found in the instant claims compared with Claims 1-18 of co-pending application No. 18/727246 (US-PG-pub 2025/0084515 A1).
This is a provisional ODP rejection since the conflict claims in the co-pending application has not in fact been patented
Claims 10-21 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 16-35 of co-pending application No. 18/568407 (US-PG-pub 2025/0271243 A1).
Regarding instant Claims 10-21, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other because Claims 16-35 of co-pending application No. 18/568407 (US-PG-pub 2025/0271243 A1) teaches the same steel sheet. All of the essential alloy composition ranges and microstructure phases disclosed by Claims 16-35 of co-pending application No. 18/568407 (US-PG-pub 2025/0271243 A1) overlaps the claimed ranges, which creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPERP 2144 05 I. Since the Mn in retained austenite and C in retained austenite are recognized as a material features fully depended on the alloy composition and alloy microstructures. Claims 16-35 of co-pending application No. 18/568407 (US-PG-pub 2025/0271243 A1) teaches the similar alloy composition with similar microstructures as claimed in the instant claims, the claimed ratios related to the Mn and C contents in retained austenite over C amount in T0 composition would be highly expected in the alloy of Claims 16-35 of co-pending application No. 18/568407 (US-PG-pub 2025/0271243 A1). MPEP 2112 01 and 2145 II. Thus, no patentable distinction was found in the instant claims compared with Claims 16-35 of co-pending application No. 18/568407 (US-PG-pub 2025/0271243 A1).
This is a provisional ODP rejection since the conflict claims in the co-pending application has not in fact been patented
Claims 10-21 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of co-pending application No. 18/568407 (US 12442056 B2).
Regarding instant Claims 10-21, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other because Claims 1-20 of co-pending application No. 18/568407 (US 12442056 B2) teaches the same steel sheet. All of the essential alloy composition ranges and microstructure phases disclosed by Claims 1-20 of co-pending application No. 18/568407 (US 12442056 B2) overlaps the claimed ranges, which creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPERP 2144 05 I. Since the Mn in retained austenite and C in retained austenite are recognized as a material features fully depended on the alloy composition and alloy microstructures. Claims 1-20 of co-pending application No. 18/568407 (US 12442056 B2) teaches the similar alloy composition with similar microstructures as claimed in the instant claims, the claimed ratios related to the Mn and C contents in retained austenite over C amount in T0 composition would be highly expected in the alloy of Claims 1-20 of co-pending application No. 18/568407 (US 12442056 B2). MPEP 2112 01 and 2145 II.
Thus, no patentable distinction was found in the instant claims compared with Claims 1-20 of co-pending application No. 18/568407 (US 12442056 B2).
Claims 10-21 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-22 of co-pending application No. 18/546428 (US-PG-pub 2024/0124964 A1).
Regarding instant Claims 10-21, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other because Claims 1-22 of co-pending application No. 18/546428 (US-PG-pub 2024/0124964 A1) teaches the same steel sheet. All of the essential alloy composition ranges and microstructure phases disclosed by Claims 1-22 of co-pending application No. 18/546428 (US-PG-pub 2024/0124964 A1) overlaps the claimed ranges, which creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPERP 2144 05 I. Since the Mn in retained austenite and C in retained austenite are recognized as a material features fully depended on the alloy composition and alloy microstructures. Claims 1-22 of co-pending application No. 18/546428 (US-PG-pub 2024/0124964 A1) teaches the similar alloy composition with similar microstructures as claimed in the instant claims, the claimed ratios related to the Mn and C contents in retained austenite over C amount in T0 composition would be highly expected in the alloy of Claims 1-22 of co-pending application No. 18/546428 (US-PG-pub 2024/0124964 A1). MPEP 2112 01 and 2145 II. Thus, no patentable distinction was found in the instant claims compared with Claims 1-22 of co-pending application No. 18/546428 (US-PG-pub 2024/0124964 A1).
This is a provisional ODP rejection since the conflict claims in the co-pending application has not in fact been patented
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
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 J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. 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.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734