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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 9-15) in the reply filed on 03/04/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn. Claims 9-15 are examined herein.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 9 and 10 recite “having an area of 30 µm2 or more” in line 35 of claim 9 and line 3 of claim 10, which should be “having an area of 30 µm2 or more”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9-15 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.
Claim 9 recites “a maximum Mn concentration in a region up to 0.5 µm from the interface” in line 39. In a region up to 0.5 µm from the interface between the ferrite and the martensite could be inside the ferrite grains or inside the martensite grains. It’s unclear the recited maximum Mn concentration is inside the ferrite grains or the martensite grains. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites REM. Please spell out the full term of REM to improve claim clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 9-10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima (US 2019/0161822), and further in view of Minami (US 2022/0251676).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 13-15, Takashima discloses (Abstract; [0025] to [0064]) a steel sheet with a composition that overlaps with the instant claimed composition and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected amounts of each element from the ranges disclosed in Takashima to produce a steel composition that meets the recited composition in claims 9 and 13-15. The recited amount of O in claim 9 is a well-known impurity level oxygen in steel. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the O level as low as possible in order to make a steel sheet having good mechanical properties.
Element
Claim 1
(mass %)
Takashima
(mass %)
Overlap
(mass %)
C
0.07-0.15
0.05-0.15
0.07-0.15
Si
0.01-2.0
0.0-1.6
0.01-1.6
Mn
1.5-3.0
1.3-2.4
1.5-2.4
P
0-0.02
0-0.05
0-0.02
S
0-0.02
0-0.005
0-0.005
Al
0.001-1
0.01-0.1
0.01-0.1
N
0-0.02
0-0.01
0-0.01
Co
0-0.5
0-0.1
0-0.1
Ni
0-1.0
0-0.05
0-0.05
Mo
0.0-1.0
0.005-0.5
0.005-0.5
Cr
0-2
0.005-1.0
0.005-1.0
O
0-0.02
impurity
impurity
Ti
0.0-0.5
0.005-0.1
0.005-0.1
B
0-0.01
0.0002-0.004
0.0002-0.004
Nb
0-0.5
0-0.5
0-0.5
V
0-0.5
0-0.05
0-0.05
Cu
0-0.5
0-0.3
0-0.3
Ta
0-0.1
0-0.01
0-0.01
Sn
0-0.05
0-0.1
0-0.05
Sb
0-0.05
0-0.01
0-0.01
Mg
0-0.05
0-0.01
0-0.01
Ca
0-0.05
0-0.005
0-0.005
Zr
0-0.05
0-0.1
0-0.05
REM
0-0.1
0-0.005
0-0.005
W
0-0.1
0
0
As
0-0.05
0
0
Fe + Impurities
Balance
Balance
Balance
Takashima discloses that the steel contains, by volume fraction, ferrite of 35% to 65%, residual austenite of 7% or less (including 0%), martensite of 20% to 60%, bainite of 20% or less (including 0%) (Abstract), which overlaps the recited area proportion of phases in claim 9. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, the recited area fraction of phases is a prima facie case of obviousness over Takashima.
Takashima discloses examples that meet the recited composition of essential elements in claim 9 (Table 1, Steel A, B, C, E, F and H) and also meet the recited phase content in claim 9 (Table 3, Sample No. 1-8).
Takashima does not explicitly disclose that a ratio of the number of crystal grains of the ferrite and the bainite having an area of 3 µm2 or less to a total number of crystal grains of the ferrite and the bainite is 40% or more, a proportion of crystal grains of the ferrite and the bainite having an area of 30 µm2 or more is 5% or less, and a difference Δ Mn between an Mn concentration at a position of 1.0 µm from an interface of the ferrite and the martensite in a direction perpendicular to the interface inward into the ferrite grains and a maximum Mn concentration in a region up to 0.5 µm from the interface is 1.00 mass% or less as recited in claim 9 and that he average aspect ratio of the crystal grains of the ferrite and the bainite having an area of 3 µm2 or less is 1.0 or more and 2.0 or less as recited in claim 10.
However, these structure features depend on the steel composition and the method of making the steel. Takashima discloses a method of making the steel sheet, comprising: heating the slab to 1150-1270°C, hot-rolling to manufacture a hot-rolled sheet with a finish rolling temperature of 850-950 °C, coiling the hot rolled steel sheet at temperatures of 300-600° C, cold rolling the steel sheet at a reduction rate of 25% to 85%, annealing the cold rolled sheet at 760 to 900° C for 15-1200 seconds ([0085] to [0110]), which overlap the processing temperature and time recited in claims 16 and 17. No holding after coiling is performed in Takashima, which meets the limitation that holding time is 8 hour or less as recited in claim 16.
The difference between the method of Takashima and the method of instant Specification is that Takashima does not disclose the cooling rate after the coiling step as recited in claim 16 and the dew point during annealing as recited in claim 17.
Minami teaches a method of making a steel sheet having composition and phase content overlapping the composition and phase content of Takashima ([0077] to [0125]). Minami discloses that after coiling, cool the coils to 20-200 ºC at a cooling rate of 0.001 ºC/s to 1 ºC/s in order to make a steel sheet having a tensile strength of 1180 MPa or more ([0163] to [0167]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform cooling to cool the coils to 20-200 ºC at a cooling rate of 0.001 ºC/s to 1 ºC/s as taught by Minami in the process of Takashima in order to make a steel sheet having high strength as disclosed by Minami. Minami further discloses that the dew point during annealing is preferably -35 ºC or higher and 15 ºC or lower in order to make a steel sheet having excellent bendability ([0199]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform annealing at a dew point of -35 ºC or higher and 15 ºC or lower as taught by Minami in the process of Takashima in order to make a steel sheet having excellent bendability as disclosed by Minami.
In view of the fact that Takashimain view of Minami teaches a steel composition that meets the recited composition in claim 9 and a method of making the steel sheet with processing parameters overlapping the processing conditions recited in claims 16 and 17, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the steel sheet disclosed by Takashimain view of Minami to meet the limitation that a ratio of the number of crystal grains of the ferrite and the bainite having an area of 3 µm2 or less to a total number of crystal grains of the ferrite and the bainite is 40% or more, a proportion of crystal grains of the ferrite and the bainite having an area of 30 µm2 or more is 5% or less, and a difference Δ Mn between an Mn concentration at a position of 1.0 µm from an interface of the ferrite and the martensite in a direction perpendicular to the interface inward into the ferrite grains and a maximum Mn concentration in a region up to 0.5 µm from the interface is 1.00 mass% or less as recited in claim 9 and that he average aspect ratio of the crystal grains of the ferrite and the bainite having an area of 3 µm2 or less is 1.0 or more and 2.0 or less as recited in claim 10. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima (US 2019/0161822) in view of Minami (US 2022/0251676), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Hirakami (US 2012/0247618).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Takashima in view of Minami does not teach the limitation recited in claims 11 and 12. Hirakami teaches a method of making a steel sheet having major composition overlapping the steel composition disclosed by Takashima. Hirakami discloses that a low carbon region having a depth from the surface of the steel material of 100 µm or more to 1000 µm or less and having a carbon concentration of 0.05 mass % or more and 0.9 time or less the carbon concentration of the steel material is formed to improve fracture resistance (Abstract; [0018]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a steel sheet containing a low carbon region having a depth from the surface of the steel material of 100 µm or more to 1000 µm or less and having a carbon concentration of 0.05 mass % or more and 0.9 time or less the carbon concentration of the steel material as taught by Hirakami in the process of Takashima in view of Minami in order to make a steel sheet having improved fracture resistance as disclosed by Hirakami. The carbon concentration of 0.05 mass % or more and 0.9 time or less the carbon concentration of the steel material disclosed by Hirakami overlaps the recited carbon concentration in claims 11 and 12. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, claims 11 and 12 are obvious over Takashima in view of Minami and Hirakami.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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 at 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights