DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are pending, and claims 1-4 and 14 are currently under review.
Claims 5-13 are withdrawn.
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/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-4 and 14, in the reply filed on 2/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the prior art does not teach the claimed microstructural features or properties. This is not found persuasive because the prior art teaches an overlapping steel composition and method of manufacture, such that overlapping, substantially similar properties would have naturally flowed absent concrete evidence to the contrary, which applicant has not presented. Applicant further argues that the claimed bending ratio is measured differently in the prior art vs. the instant application. The examiner cannot concur because the claims do not recite these features.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/26/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The term “high strength steel” is interpreted to merely require a tensile strength of 980 MPa or more as further recited in claim 1.
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) 1-4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (US 2020/0063227) alone or further in view of Shingu et al. (JP2008056962, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki et al. discloses a steel sheet having a composition as seen in table 1 below [0045]. Yamazaki et al. does not expressly require any oxygen, such that one of ordinary skill would understand oxygen to be absent or merely present in impurity amounts, which meets the claimed range. Yamazaki et al. further teaches that the entire steel (ie. surface and interior) has a microstructure of up to 97 percent upper bainite having a grain size of less than 12 micrometers, with a remainder of martensite and austenite [abstract, 0071]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the steel composition and microstructure of Yamazaki et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Yamazaki et al. further teaches tensile strengths of at least 980 MPa (ie. high strength), elongation values of up to approximately 16%, and r/t values of less than approximately 1.15, which overlaps with the claimed ranges [table3].
Yamazaki et al. does not expressly teach a difference in hardness as claimed. However, the examiner submits that an overlapping, substantially similar range hardness difference would have naturally flowed from the disclosure of Yamazaki et al. One of ordinary skill would understand that steel properties (ie. difference in hardness) are directly affected by steel composition, microstructure, and processing. Yamazaki et al. discloses an overlapping steel composition and microstructure as already explained. Yamazaki et al. further teaches overlapping manufacturing parameters as also shown in table 1 below. Since Yamazaki et al. discloses an overlapping steel composition, microstructure, and method of manufacture, one of ordinary skill would have expected substantially similar, overlapping features of hardness difference to flow from the disclosure of Yamazaki et al. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I).
Alternatively, Yamazaki et al. does not expressly teach a difference in hardness as claimed. Shingu et al. teaches that it is known to control a variation in hardness in the thickness direction of a steel sheet such that a difference between a surface and center portion is 40 HV or less in order to achieve desirable mechanical properties [0027]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the steel of Yamazaki et al. by specifying a hardness difference for the aforementioned benefit expressly taught by Shingu et al. The examiner notes that the hardness difference of Shingu et al. overlaps with the claimed hardness range that would result from tensile strength values of greater than 980 MPa taught by Yamazaki et al. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Table 1.
Element (wt.%)
Claim 1 (wt.%)
Yamazaki et al. (wt.%)
C
0.05 – 0.2
0.04 – 0.15
Si
0.5 – 1.2
0.4 – 2
Mn
1.5 – 4
1 – 3
P
0 – 0.1
0 – 0.1
S
0 – 0.03
0 – 0.01
Al
0.001 – 2
0.01 – 2
N
0 – 0.01
0 – 0.01
O
0 – 0.01
0
B
0.0005 – 0.01
0.0005 – 0.005
Fe & Impurities
Balance
Balance
Processing parameters
Instant specification [0059-0075]
Yamazaki et al. [0081-0098]
Slab heating at 1150 to 1350 degrees C
Slab heating at 1150 to 1350 degrees C
Hot rolling with rough rolling and finish rolling at RC2-50 to RC2+120 degrees C, with 25 to 50 percent of reduction at RC1 or less
Hot rolling with finish rolling at RC-100 to RC+100 degrees C, with 80 percent or less reduction at RC or less (overlapping with instant specification)
Cooling such that the difference between surface cooling and interior cooling is at least 10 degrees C per second or more at an interior speed of at least 15 degrees C or faster (achieved by water cooling) to a stop temperature of Trs to Trs+250 degrees C
Cooling at a rate of 30 degrees C per second or faster with water cooling (same as instant specification) to 600 degrees C or lower
Coiling at Trs to Trs+250 degrees C
Coiling at 600 degrees C or lower
Cooling to below 100 degrees C at 20 degrees C per second or less
Cooling to Ms-100 degrees C at 0.2 degrees C per minute or more
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned prior art discloses the steel of claim 1 (see previous). Yamazaki et al. does not expressly teach a variation in martensite and/or austenite as claimed. However, as stated previously, since Yamazaki et al. discloses an overlapping steel composition and method of manufacture, one of ordinary skill would have expected substantially similar, overlapping features of microstructural variation to flow from the disclosure of Yamazaki et al. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 3-4, the aforementioned prior art discloses the steel of claims 1-2 (see previous). Yamazaki et al. further discloses an inclusion of 0.1 to 2.5 weight percent Cr, for example, which overlaps with the claimed ranges [0026]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 14, the aforementioned prior art discloses the steel of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the aforementioned grain size of 12 micrometers or less taught by Yamazaki et al. further overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/2026 regarding unity of invention have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as explained in the election/restriction section above.
Conclusion
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