DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 are pending, and claims 1-4 are currently under review.
Claims 5-6 are withdrawn.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 without traverse of group I, claims 1-4, in the reply filed on 2/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/03/2026.
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 1-4 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 1 recites the term “main phase”, which is indefinite because it is unclear whether “main” requires some particular numerical amount, whether “main” just requires a majority amount or a greatest amount relative to other microstructural phases, or something else entirely. The examiner interprets the aforementioned term to be met by any of the above interpretations.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (WO2019009410, US 2021/0140005 referred to as English translation) alone or alternatively further in view of Shuto et al. (US 2017/0145538).
Regarding claims 1-2, Yoshida et al. discloses a hot rolled steel sheet having a composition as seen in table 1 below [abstract, 0017-0036]. Yoshida et al. is silent regarding any required inclusions of O, which one of ordinary skill would understand to mean that O is absent (ie. 0%) or only present in impurity amounts, which meets the claimed ranges. The examiner notes that the overlap between the composition of Yoshida et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Yoshida et al. further teaches a microstructure of ferrite in an amount of up to 55%, which meets the limitation of “main phase” as claimed [0037].
Yoshida et al. does not expressly teach a feature of maximum orientation density of grains in a plane measured as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill would readily understand that grain features are directly influenced by steel composition, microstructure, and manufacturing parameters. Yoshida et al. discloses an overlapping steel composition and microstructure as explained above. Yoshida et al. also teaches an overlapping, substantially similar method of manufacturing as further shown below in table 1 below. Therefore, an overlapping, substantially similar range of maximum orientation density of grains would have naturally flowed from the overlapping steel composition, microstructure, and manufacturing parameters of Yoshida et al. absent concrete evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2144.05(I) & MPEP 2112.
Alternatively, Yoshida et al. does not specify an amount of O as claimed. Shuto et al. discloses a hot rolled sheet having good hole expandability and stretch flanging workability [abstract]; wherein it is known to control O amounts to be 0 to 0.01 weight percent to balance economic efficiency with desired formability [0102-0103]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the steel of Yoshida et al. by controlling O for the aforementioned benefit disclosed by Shuto et al. The examiner notes that the overlap between the O amount of Shuto et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Table 1.
Element (wt.%)
Claim 1 (wt.%)
Yoshida et al. (wt.%)
C
0 – 0.1
0.02 – 0.2
Si
0 – 2
0.005 – 2
Mn
0 – 2
1.3 – 2.4
P
0 – 0.1
0 – 0.1
S
0 – 0.02
0 – 0.01
Al
0 – 1.5
0.001 – 1
O
0 – 0.0025
0
0 – 0.01 (Shuto et al.)
Fe & Impurities
Balance
Balance
Processing parameters
Instant specification [0039-0051]
Yoshida et al. [0146-]
Slab heating at 1100 to 1350 degrees C
Slab heating at 1150 to 1350 degrees C
Hot rolling with:
6 passes or more at a reduction of at least 15% per pass at 1000 degrees C or more
3 passes or more at a reduction of at least 15% per pass at lower than 1000 degrees C
rolling for less than 2 seconds at less than 1000 degrees C
a finish delivery temperature of 850 to 940 degrees C
Hot rolling with:
at least 2 passes at a reduction of at least 50% per pass at a temperature of FT+50 to FT+150 degrees C (overlapping temperature)
at least 2 passes at a reduction of at least 50% per pass at a temperature of FT to FT+50 degrees C (overlapping temperature)
rolling for 0.5 to 10 seconds at FT to FT+50 (overlapping temperature)
finish rolling temperature at AR3 to 1100 degrees C (overlapping temperature)
Cool to 700 degrees C or lower at 50 degrees C per second or faster
Cool to lower than Ms at 20 degrees C per second or faster
Coil at 580 to 700 degrees C
General coiling (overlapping temperatures as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill)
Regarding claims 3-4, the aforementioned prior art discloses the steel of claims 1-2 (see previous). Yoshida et al. further teaches an inclusion of Cr of up to 2 weight percent among others, which overlaps with the claimed range [0096-0097]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (US 2014/0000766) alone or alternatively further in view of Shuto et al. (US 2017/0145538).
Regarding claim 1, Maeda et al. discloses a hot rolled steel sheet having a composition as seen in table 2 below [abstract, 0028-0051]. Maeda et al. is silent regarding any required inclusions of O, which one of ordinary skill would understand to mean that O is absent (ie. 0%) or only present in impurity amounts, which meets the claimed ranges. The examiner notes that the overlap between the composition of Maeda et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Maeda et al. further teaches a microstructure of ferrite in an amount of at least 70%, which meets the limitation of “main phase” as claimed [abstract]. Maeda et al. also teaches controlling x-ray random intensity ratios to be 1.5 or less, which meets the claimed range [0052].
Alternatively, Maeda et al. does not specify an amount of O as claimed. Shuto et al. discloses a hot rolled sheet having good hole expandability and stretch flanging workability [abstract]; wherein it is known to control O amounts to be 0 to 0.01 weight percent to balance economic efficiency with desired formability [0102-0103]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the steel of Maeda et al. by controlling O for the aforementioned benefit disclosed by Shuto et al. The examiner notes that the overlap between the O amount of Shuto et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Table 1.
Element (wt.%)
Claim 1 (wt.%)
Maeda et al. (wt.%)
C
0 – 0.1
0.03 – 0.1
Si
0 – 2
0.5 – 1.5
Mn
0 – 2
0.5 – 2
P
0 – 0.1
0 – 0.05
S
0 – 0.02
0 – 0.01
Al
0 – 1.5
0 – 0.3
O
0 – 0.0025
0
0 – 0.01 (Shuto et al.)
Fe & Impurities
Balance
Balance
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned prior art discloses the steel of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the aforementioned x-ray random intensity ratios of Maeda et al. pertain to the 211 plane which one of ordinary skill would understand to correspond to the claimed plane. The examiner’s position is further bolstered by the same mechanical properties of tensile strength (~500 MPa) and hole expansion (greater than 100%) achieved by Maeda et al. [0091-0093, table4] relative to the instant specification, wherein the instant specification expressly teaches the claimed feature to directly affect said properties [table3 instant spec.].
Regarding claims 3-4, the aforementioned prior art discloses the steel of claims 1-2 (see previous). Maeda et al. further teaches an inclusion of Cr of up to 1 weight percent among others, which overlaps with the claimed range [0048]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
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