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
Claims 5-7 and 10-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 03/04/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-4, 8, and 9 in the reply filed on 03/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021-172838 A, based on the machine translation, in view of JP 6323617 B1, based on the machine translation.
JP 2021-172838 A (JP ‘838) teaches a high strength steel sheet with the following composition with respect to the claims:
% by mass
Claim 1
Claim 2
JP ‘838
C
0.150-0.350
0.08-0.40
Si
0.80-3.00
3.0 or less
Mn
1.50-3.50
1.0-4.0
P
0.100 or less
0.030 or less
S
0.0200 or less
0.0030 or less
Al
0.100 or less
1.5 or less
N
0.0100 or less
0.0010-0.010
O
0.0100 or less
not recited
B, Ca, Mg, REM (each)
0.0050 or less
B: 0.0005-0.010
Ca: 0.0050 or less
Mg: 0.002 or less
REM: 0.0050 or less
Ti, Nb, Sb, Sn (each)
0.200 or less
Nb: 0.20 or less
Sb: 0.10 or less
Sn: 0.50 or less
V, W (each)
0.500 or less
V: 2.0 or less
Mo, Cr, Cu, Ni (each)
1.000 or less
Mo, Cr, Cu, Ni (each) 2.0 or less
Zr, Ta, Hf, As, Pb,
Zn, Bi (each)
0.10 or less
Zr: 0.002 or less
Co
0.30 or less
not recited
diff H
0.50 mass ppm or less
suppressed
TS (MPa)
1320 or more
1180-2000
temp martensite
and bainite
55-98%
40-100%
retained austenite
5-30%
0-20%
prior austenite grain
avg circ diameter
15.0 μm or less
more than 5 μm
b/a
0.80 or less
5.0 or less
The composition of the steel is listed on pages 2-5. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. The total of bainite and martensite, retained austenite, and average aspect ratio of prior austenite grains are on page 5. The tensile strength and prior austenite grain size are on page 6. The diffusible hydrogen is suppressed (pages 2 and 3); however, JP ‘838 does not teach the diffusible hydrogen is 0.5 ppm or less as claimed.
JP 6323617 B1 (JP ‘617) teaches reducing the amount of diffusible in steel in a high-strength galvanized steel sheet (abstract). The amount of diffusible hydrogen in the steel sheet is 0.50 ppm or less (page 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reduce the amount to of diffusible hydrogen in JP ‘838 as taught by JP ‘617, since JP ‘617 teaches producing a steel sheet having excellent delayed fracture resistance (abstract).
Regarding the limitation in the preamble of “cold-rolled steel sheet,” PREAMBLE product. Therefore, JP ‘838 reads on the claimed steel sheet.
Regarding Claim 2, JP ‘838 teaches the claimed ranges as stated above.
Regarding Claim 3, JP ‘838 teaches the sheet is plated (page 7).
Regarding Claim 4, JP ‘838 teaches the plated layer is heat-treated and hot-dip zinc-plated (page 7).
Regarding Claim 8, JP ‘838 teaches the sheet is plated (page 7).
Regarding Claim 9, JP ‘838 teaches the plated layer is heat-treated and hot-dip zinc-plated (page 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 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 D. Hendricks can be reached at (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 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/TIMA M. MCGUTHRY-BANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights