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 with traverse of Group 1- claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 16 April 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Taira (US2016/0002807) does not teach the common technical feature of Groups 1, 2, and 3 because Taira teaches a Zn-based electroplated coating film not a Fe-based electroplated coating as in the claimed invention. Examiner finds this persuasive and withdraws the restriction. Claims 1-20 are examined on the merits.
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, 8-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP5928437 of Tanimoto in view of US20150218706 of Honda.
Claim 1 claims a raw material cold-rolled steel sheet with Fe-based coating film comprising: a base steel sheet having a chemical composition containing, C in an amount of 0.80 mass% or less, Si in an amount of 0.10 mass% or more and 3.00 mass% or less, Mn in an amount of 1.50 mass% or more and 3.50 mass% or less, P in an amount of 0.100 mass% or less; S in an amount of 0.0300 mass% or less, Al in an amount of 0.100 mass% or less, N in an amount of 0.0100 mass% or less, B in an amount of 0.0050 mass% or less, Ti in an amount of 0.200 mass% or less, with a remaining part consisting of Fe and inevitable impurities; and a P-adhered Fe-based coating film comprising an Fe-based coating film disposed on at least one surface of the base steel sheet and a P-containing substance adhered to a surface of the Fe-based coating film, wherein an adhesion amount of the P-containing substance in terms of P is 0.2 mg/m2 or more.
Tanimoto discloses a method for manufacturing high strength cold rolled steel sheet excellent in chemical conversion treatment property and corrosion resistance after coating in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Tanimoto teaches 0.05% or more and 0.25% or less of C, Para[0031], 0.5% or more and 2.0% or less of Si, Para[0029], Mn at 0.5% or more and 3.0% or less, Para[0032], P at 0.005% or more and 0.050% or less, Para[0033], S content of 0.0050% or less, Para[0034], Al at 0.005% or more and 0.060% or less, Para[0035], and a content of N of 0.0100% or less, Para[0036]. While Tanimoto teaches Ti as a precipitation forming element, Para[0003], a specific range for Ti is not taught. Tanimoto is silent on Boron. Therefore, Tanimoto teaches overlapping ranges for all elements of the base steel other than Ti and B, which are both optional element of the claimed invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Tanimoto teaches the composition of the base steel. Tanimoto discloses electroplating with an alloy having an Fe content of 50% by weight or more and 98% by weight or less, and after the electroplating process, the cold-rolled steel plate is brought into contact with a P-containing aqueous solution, Para[0023], to adhere P to the surface, Para[0063]. While Tanimoto discloses P adhesion, a specific adhesion amount is not taught.
Honda teaches a production method of galvannealed steel sheet having excellent formability and exfoliation resistance after adhesion in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Honda discloses an attached amount of P equal to or more than 20 mg/m2, Para[0010]. Honda teaches that an oxide layer including P is formed on the galvannealed surface for the purpose of enhancing the formability of the galvannealed steel sheet, Para[0008]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the P-containing substance taught by Tanimoto and Honda with an adhesion amount taught by Honda in order to enhance the formability of the steel sheet. Thus, Tanimoto in view of Honda covers all limitations of claim 1.
Claim 2 further limits claim 1 by claiming that a coating amount of the Fe-based coating film per one surface of the base steel sheet is 1.0 g/m2 or more.
Tanimoto teaches an adhesion amount of 1000 to 5000 mg /m2 for the Fe-based coating on the steel sheet, Para[0023]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Tanimoto in view of Honda covers all limitations of claim 2.
Claim 3 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the chemical composition further contains at least one element selected from the group consisting of: Cr in an amount of 1.000 mass% or less, Mo in an amount of 1.000 mass% or less, Cu in an amount of 1.000 mass% or less, Ni in an amount of 1.000 mass% or less, Nb in an amount of 0.200 mass% or less, V in an amount of 0.500 mass% or less, Sb in an amount of 0.200 mass% or less, Ta in an amount of 0.100 mass% or less, W in an amount of 0.500 mass% or less, Zr in an amount of 0.1000 mass% or less, Sn in an amount of 0.200 mass% or less, Ca in an amount of 0.0050 mass% or less, Mg in an amount of 0.0050 mass% or less, and REM in an amount of 0.0050 mass% or less.
While Tanimoto teaches Nb and V as precipitation forming elements, a specific range is not taught.
Honda teaches other alloying elements of Cu, Ni, Cr, Mo, W, Co, Ca, Y, Ce, La, Nd, Pr, Sm, V, Zr, Ta, Hf, Pb, Sn, Zn, Mg, As, Sb, and Bi, Para[0071]. Honda discloses that when the total content of such other alloy elements is equal to or less than 1% (including 0%), the formability of the steel sheet is sufficient, Para[0071]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include one or more of the alloying elements taught by Honda to the cold rolled steel sheet disclosed by Tanimoto and Honda in order to achieve sufficient formability. Thus, Tanimoto in view of Honda covers all limitations of claim 3.
Claim 4 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the Fe-based coating film has a chemical composition containing at least one element selected from the group consisting of B, C, P, N, 0, Ni, Mn, Mo, Zn, W, Pb, Sn, Cr, V, and Co in a total amount of 10 mass% or less, with a remaining part consisting of Fe and inevitable impurities.
Tanimoto discloses Zn in the coating in an amount of 2-50%, Para[0023]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Tanimoto in view of Honda covers all limitations of claim 4.
Claim 8 further limits claim 5 by claiming that the chemical composition further contains at least one element selected from the group consisting of: Cr in an amount of 1.000 mass% or less, Mo in an amount of 1.000 mass% or less, Cu in an amount of 1.000 mass% or less, Ni in an amount of 1.000 mass% or less, Nb in an amount of 0.200 mass% or less, V in an amount of 0.500 mass% or less, Sb in an amount of 0.200 mass% or less, Ta in an amount of 0.100 mass% or less, W in an amount of 0.500 mass% or less, ?r in an amount of 0.1000 mass% or less, Sn in an amount of 0.200 mass% or less, Ca in an amount of 0.0050 mass% or less, Mg in an amount of 0.0050 mass% or less, and REM in an amount of 0.0050 mass% or less.
While Tanimoto teaches Nb and V as precipitation forming elements, a specific range is not taught.
Honda teaches other alloying elements of Cu, Ni, Cr, Mo, W, Co, Ca, Y, Ce, La, Nd, Pr, Sm, V, Zr, Ta, Hf, Pb, Sn, Zn, Mg, As, Sb, and Bi, Para[0071]. Honda discloses that when the total content of such other alloy elements is equal to or less than 1% (including 0%), the formability of the steel sheet is sufficient, Para[0071]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include one or more of the alloying elements taught by Honda to the cold rolled steel sheet disclosed by Tanimoto and Honda in order to achieve sufficient formability. Thus, Tanimoto in view of Honda covers all limitations of claim 8.
Claim 9 further limits claim1 by claiming an annealing treatment to obtain the cold-rolled steel sheet with Fe-based coating film.
Tanimoto teaches annealing, Para[0005, 0006, 0010, 0023]. Thus, Tanimoto in view of Honda covers all limitations of claim 9.
Claim 10 further limits claim 9 by claiming a hot-dip galvanizing treatment to obtain the hot-dip galvanized steel sheet.
Tanimoto is silent on a hot-dip galvanizing treatment.
Honda teaches that the forming method of the galvanized layer is not particularly limited. For example, in order to form the hot dip galvanized layer, typical hot dip galvanization using a non-oxidation furnace system or an all-radiant system may be applied. In addition, the alloying conditions are not particularly limited, Para[0087]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the hot-dip galvanization taught by Honda in the method disclosed by Tanimoto in view of Honda. Thus, Tanimoto in view of Honda covers all limitations of claim 10.
Claim 11 further limits claim 10 by claiming an alloying treatment to obtain the alloyed hot-dip galvanized steel sheet.
Tanimoto is silent on an alloying treatment.
Honda teaches that an aspect of the present invention is a production method of a galvannealed steel sheet, the method including: performing a hot dip galvanization on a steel sheet; performing an alloying and forming a galvannealed layer, Para[0010]. Honda also teaches that an object of the present invention is to provide a production method of a galvannealed steel sheet having excellent formability and adhesion, Para[0009]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the alloying treatment taught by Honda to the cold rolled steel disclosed by Tanimoto and Honda in order to produce a steel sheet having excellent formability and adhesion. Thus, Tanimoto in view of Honda covers all limitations of claim 11.
Claim 12 further limits claim 2 by claiming that the Fe-based coating film has a chemical composition containing at least one element selected from the group consisting of B, C, P, N, O, Ni, Mn, Mo, Zn, W, Pb, Sn, Cr, V, and Co in a total amount of 10 mass% or less, with a remaining part consisting of Fe and inevitable impurities.
Tanimoto discloses Zn in the coating in an amount of 2-50%, Para[0023]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Tanimoto in view of Honda covers all limitations of claim 12.
Claim 13 further limits claim 3 by claiming that the Fe-based coating film has a chemical composition containing at least one element selected from the group consisting of B, C, P, N, O, Ni, Mn, Mo, Zn, W, Pb, Sn, Cr, V, and Co in a total amount of 10 mass% or less, with a remaining part consisting of Fe and inevitable impurities.
Tanimoto discloses Zn in the coating in an amount of 2-50%, Para[0023]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Tanimoto in view of Honda covers all limitations of claim 13.
Claim 15 further limits claim 6 by claiming that the chemical composition further contains at least one element selected from the group consisting of: Cr in an amount of 1.000 mass% or less, Mo in an amount of 1.000 mass% or less, Cu in an amount of 1.000 mass% or less, Ni in an amount of 1.000 mass% or less, Nb in an amount of 0.200 mass% or less, V in an amount of 0.500 mass% or less, Sb in an amount of 0.200 mass% or less, Ta in an amount of 0.100 mass% or less, W in an amount of 0.500 mass% or less, Zr in an amount of 0.1000 mass% or less, Sn in an amount of 0.200 mass% or less, Ca in an amount of 0.0050 mass% or less, Mg in an amount of 0.0050 mass% or less, and REM in an amount of 0.0050 mass% or less.
While Tanimoto teaches Nb and V as precipitation forming elements, a specific range is not taught.
Honda teaches other alloying elements of Cu, Ni, Cr, Mo, W, Co, Ca, Y, Ce, La, Nd, Pr, Sm, V, Zr, Ta, Hf, Pb, Sn, Zn, Mg, As, Sb, and Bi, Para[0071]. Honda discloses that when the total content of such other alloy elements is equal to or less than 1% (including 0%), the formability of the steel sheet is sufficient, Para[0071]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include one or more of the alloying elements taught by Honda to the cold rolled steel sheet disclosed by Tanimoto and Honda in order to achieve sufficient formability. Thus, Tanimoto in view of Honda covers all limitations of claim 15.
Claim 18 further limits claim 3 by claiming an annealing treatment to obtain the cold-rolled steel sheet with Fe-based coating film.
Tanimoto teaches annealing, Para[0005, 0006, 0010, 0023]. Thus, Tanimoto in view of Honda covers all limitations of claim 18.
Claim 19 further limits claim 18 by claiming a hot-dip galvanizing treatment to obtain the hot-dip galvanized steel sheet.
Tanimoto is silent on a hot-dip galvanizing treatment.
Honda teaches that the forming method of the galvanized layer is not particularly limited. For example, in order to form the hot dip galvanized layer, typical hot dip galvanization using a non-oxidation furnace system or an all-radiant system may be applied. In addition, the alloying conditions are not particularly limited, Para[0087]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the hot-dip galvanization taught by Honda in the method disclosed by Tanimoto in view of Honda. Thus, Tanimoto in view of Honda covers all limitations of claim 19.
Claim 20 further limits claim 19 by claiming an alloying treatment to obtain the alloyed hot-dip galvanized steel sheet.
Tanimoto is silent on an alloying treatment.
Honda teaches that an aspect of the present invention is a production method of a galvannealed steel sheet, the method including: performing a hot dip galvanization on a steel sheet; performing an alloying and forming a galvannealed layer, Para[0010]. Honda also teaches that an object of the present invention is to provide a production method of a galvannealed steel sheet having excellent formability and adhesion, Para[0009]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the alloying treatment taught by Honda to the cold rolled steel disclosed by Tanimoto and Honda in order to produce a steel sheet having excellent formability and adhesion. Thus, Tanimoto in view of Honda covers all limitations of claim 20.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP5928437 of Tanimoto.
Claim 5 claims a method for producing a raw material cold-rolled steel sheet with Fe-based coating film, the method comprising: subjecting a base steel sheet having a chemical composition containing C in an amount of 0.80 mass% or less, Si in an amount of 0.10 mass% or more and 3.00 mass% or less, Mn in an amount of 1.50 mass% or more and 3.50 mass% or less, P in an amount of 0.100 mass% or less, S in an amount of 0.0300 mass% or less, Al in an amount of 0.100 mass% or less, N in an amount of 0.0100 mass% or less, B in an amount of 0.0050 mass% or less, Ti in an amount of 0.200 mass% or less, with a remaining part consisting of Fe and inevitable impurities to an Fe-based electroplating treatment to form an Fe-based coating film on at least one surface of the base steel sheet; and bringing a surface of the Fe-based coating film into contact with an alkaline aqueous solution for 0.5 seconds or more followed by rinsing the surface of the Fe-based coating film with water and drying, wherein the alkaline aqueous solution contains P-containing ions, and a content of the P-containing ions in the alkaline aqueous solution is 0.01 g/L or more in terms of P.
Tanimoto discloses a method for manufacturing high strength cold rolled steel sheet excellent in chemical conversion treatment property and corrosion resistance after coating in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Tanimoto teaches 0.05% or more and 0.25% or less of C, Para[0031], 0.5% or more and 2.0% or less of Si, Para[0029], Mn at 0.5% or more and 3.0% or less, Para[0032], P at 0.005% or more and 0.050% or less, Para[0033], S content of 0.0050% or less, Para[0034], Al at 0.005% or more and 0.060% or less, Para[0035], and a content of N of 0.0100% or less, Para[0036]. While Tanimoto teaches Ti as a precipitation forming element, Para[0003], a specific range for Ti is not taught. Tanimoto is silent on Boron. Therefore, Tanimoto teaches overlapping ranges for all elements of the base steel other than Ti and B, which are both optional element of the claimed invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Tanimoto teaches the composition of the base steel. Tanimoto discloses electroplating with an alloy having an Fe content of 50% by weight or more and 98% by weight or less, and after the electroplating process, the cold-rolled steel plate is brought into contact with a P-containing aqueous solution containing 0.001 g / L or more, Para[0023], for 2 to 50 seconds, Para[0013] to adhere P to the surface, Para[0063]. These ranges overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Tanimoto teaches all limitations of claim 5.
Claim 6 further limits claim 5 by claiming that the alkaline aqueous solution contains at least one phosphorus compound selected from the group consisting of a phosphate, a pyrophosphate, and a triphosphate.
Tanimoto teaches that as the P-containing aqueous solution, for example, sodium diphosphate (Na 4 P 2 O 7 .10H 2 O), disodium hydrogen phosphate (Na 2 HPO 4 .12H 2 O), trisodium phosphate (Na 3 PO 4) An aqueous solution such as 12H 2 O) or sodium dihydrogenphosphate (NaH 2 PO 4 .2H 2 O) can be used, Para[0065]. Thus, Tanimoto teaches all limitations of claim 6.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP5928437 of Tanimoto, as cited above, further in view of CN101878325 of Michitaka.
Claim 7 further limits claim 5 by claiming that the pH of the alkaline aqueous solution is 8 or more.
Tanimoto teaches a pH of 10 to 14, Para[0013]. This overlaps with the claimed pH range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
Michitaka teaches a steel sheet for fuel tanks and process for manufacturing the sheet in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Michitaka teaches that as a surface conditioning treatment, an acidic plating solution was neutralized by immersing in disodium hydrogen phosphate at 50 ° C and pH 10, and then washed with water to form a Zn oxide layer containing P in the surface layer, Para[0087]. This value overlaps with the claimed pH range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the pH of the aqueous solution as taught by Tanimoto and Michitaka to form a P-containing surface layer. Thus, Tanimoto in view of Michitaka covers all limitations of claim 7.
Claim 14 further limits claim 6 by claiming that the pH of the alkaline aqueous solution is 8 or more.
Tanimoto teaches a pH of 10 to 14, Para[0013]. This overlaps with the claimed pH range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
Michitaka teaches a steel sheet for fuel tanks and process for manufacturing the sheet in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Michitaka teaches that as a surface conditioning treatment, an acidic plating solution was neutralized by immersing in disodium hydrogen phosphate at 50 ° C and pH 10, and then washed with water to form a Zn oxide layer containing P in the surface layer, Para[0087]. This value overlaps with the claimed pH range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the pH of the aqueous solution as taught by Tanimoto and Michitaka to form a P-containing surface layer. Thus, Tanimoto in view of Michitaka covers all limitations of claim 14.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP5928437 of Tanimoto in view of CN101878325 of Michitaka, as cited above, further in view of US20150218706 of Honda.
Claim 16 further limits claim 7 by claiming that the chemical composition further contains at least one element selected from the group consisting of: Cr in an amount of 1.000 mass% or less, Mo in an amount of 1.000 mass% or less, Cu in an amount of 1.000 mass% or less, Ni in an amount of 1.000 mass% or less, Nb in an amount of 0.200 mass% or less,V in an amount of 0.500 mass% or less, Sb in an amount of 0.200 mass% or less, Ta in an amount of 0.100 mass% or less, W in an amount of 0.500 mass% or less, Zr in an amount of 0.1000 mass% or less, Sn in an amount of 0.200 mass% or less, Ca in an amount of 0.0050 mass% or less, Mg in an amount of 0.0050 mass% or less, and REM in an amount of 0.0050 mass% or less.
While Tanimoto teaches Nb and V as precipitation forming elements, a specific range is not taught.
Honda teaches other alloying elements of Cu, Ni, Cr, Mo, W, Co, Ca, Y, Ce, La, Nd, Pr, Sm, V, Zr, Ta, Hf, Pb, Sn, Zn, Mg, As, Sb, and Bi, Para[0071]. Honda discloses that when the total content of such other alloy elements is equal to or less than 1% (including 0%), the formability of the steel sheet is sufficient, Para[0071]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include one or more of the alloying elements taught by Honda to the cold rolled steel sheet disclosed by Tanimoto and Honda in order to achieve sufficient formability. Thus, Tanimoto in view of Michitaka further in view of Honda covers all limitations of claim 16.
Claim 17 further limits claim 14 by claiming that the chemical composition further contains at least one element selected from the group consisting of: Cr in an amount of 1.000 mass% or less, Mo in an amount of 1.000 mass% or less, Cu in an amount of 1.000 mass% or less, Ni in an amount of 1.000 mass% or less, Nb in an amount of 0.200 mass% or less,V in an amount of 0.500 mass% or less, Sb in an amount of 0.200 mass% or less, Ta in an amount of 0.100 mass% or less, W in an amount of 0.500 mass% or less, Zr in an amount of 0.1000 mass% or less, Sn in an amount of 0.200 mass% or less, Ca in an amount of 0.0050 mass% or less, Mg in an amount of 0.0050 mass% or less, and REM in an amount of 0.0050 mass% or less.
While Tanimoto teaches Nb and V as precipitation forming elements, a specific range is not taught.
Honda teaches other alloying elements of Cu, Ni, Cr, Mo, W, Co, Ca, Y, Ce, La, Nd, Pr, Sm, V, Zr, Ta, Hf, Pb, Sn, Zn, Mg, As, Sb, and Bi, Para[0071]. Honda discloses that when the total content of such other alloy elements is equal to or less than 1% (including 0%), the formability of the steel sheet is sufficient, Para[0071]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include one or more of the alloying elements taught by Honda to the cold rolled steel sheet disclosed by Tanimoto and Honda in order to achieve sufficient formability. Thus, Tanimoto in view of Michitaka further in view of Honda covers all limitations of claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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 (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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights