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 .
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed November 12, 2025, are acknowledged. Claim 1 is amended. No new matter has been added.
Claims 8-10 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, Group II, drawn to a method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely elected without traverse in the reply filed June 12, 2025.
Claims 1-10 are pending, and Claims 1-7 are currently considered in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 4, 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on August 12, 2035. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bae (previously cited, KR 20190077794 A, US 20210054485 A1 used for English Equivalent).
Regarding Claims 1-2 and Claim 5, Bae discloses a hot-rolled steel plate (Abstract; para. [0001]) comprising:
13-26% Mn, 0.35-0.65% C, 1-6% Cr, 0-4% Al, 0.01-0.4% Si, 0-0.05% P, 0-0.02% S, a balance of Fe and other unavoidable impurities (Abstract, ranges read on the claimed values 10-20% Mn, 0.6-2.0%C, 0-5% Cr, 0-0.5% Al, 0-1% Si, 0-0.1% P, 0-0.02% S, a remainder of Fe, and other unavoidable impurities), and
wherein the hot-rolled steel plate has a microstructure with 97area% or more austenite (Abstract, 97% or more austenite), and
(Claim 5) wherein the steel plate has a thickness of 4-20 mm (para. [0109], 8mm).
Bae discloses carbides comprising a size of 0.5um or less, but fails to disclose (Claim 1) film-shaped precipitates formed along austenite grain boundaries (Claim 2) with a thickness of 0.1-2.0um.
However, Bae discloses the claimed composition, austenite as a main phase and the claimed plate thickness (see above), and further discloses a hot-rolling method which is substantially similar to that of the instant invention’s. Bae specifically discloses heating a steel slab to 1000-1250C, finish rolling from 950-1050C and from 850-1000C, cooling at 5C/s or more to a cooling temperature as low as 250C and then coiling (para. [0018]-[0020]), which is the same as the instant invention which requires reheating from 1000-1250C, hot rolling with a finish temperature of 800C or more, cooling at 5C/s or more to a temperature less than 500C and then coiling with an average coiling temperature of less than 300C (para. [0022]-[0027]). Bae teaches that coiling at too large of a temperature coarsens carbides and lowers toughness, and it would be obvious to coil at the minimum temperature of 250C (and therefore an average coiling temperature below 300C), in order to maximize the toughness and to minimize carbide size (see also abstract wherein Bae desires carbide sizes to be less than 0.5um).
Because Bae teaches a substantially identical method and discloses the claimed composition, main austenite phase, and plate thickness, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the steel to comprise the claimed microstructure and the claimed (Claim 1) film-shaped precipitates formed along austenite grain boundaries (Claim 2) with a thickness of 0.1-2.0um.
Bae further discloses wherein the hot-rolled steel plate may be subjected to piping and wherein the hot-rolled steel plate undergoes work hardening from piping (Abstract; para. [0001]; para. [0004]).
Bae fails to disclose wherein the hardness increases by 1.1 by the work hardening after piping; however, the limitation regarding piping is an intended use limitation. The claims are directed to a hot-rolled steel plate, and the limitations regarding the composition and structure of the hot-rolled steel plate has been met (see above). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the hot-rolled steel plate of Bae, which meets the claimed structure and is produced by the same hot-rolling method, behave the same as claimed and therefore comprise the same hardness when subjected to the claimed piping process.
When 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.
Regarding Claim 3, Bae discloses an elongation of 30% or more (para. [0015], 50% or greater), but is silent towards the tensile strength. However, as explained above (see Claim 1), Bae discloses a substantially identical method and discloses the claimed composition, main austenite phase and plate thickness, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the steel to comprise the claimed microstructure (see precipitates claimed above; see Abstract in Bae, wherein carbides are 0.5um or less), and therefore also the claimed tensile strength of 800MPa or greater as well.
When 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.
Regarding Claim 4, Bae is silent towards the hardness. However, as explained above (see Claim 1), Bae discloses a substantially identical method and discloses the claimed composition, main austenite phase and plate thickness, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the steel to comprise the claimed microstructure (see precipitates claimed above; see Abstract in Bae, wherein carbides are 0.5um or less), and therefore also the claimed hardness of 220 HV or greater as well.
When 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.
Regarding Claim 6, Bae discloses a steel pipe (Abstract; para. [0001], pipe reads on the claimed term tube) comprising:
13-26% Mn, 0.35-0.65% C, 1-6% Cr, 0-4% Al, 0.01-0.4% Si, 0-0.05% P, 0-0.02% S, a balance of Fe and other unavoidable impurities (Abstract, ranges read on the claimed values 10-20% Mn, 0.6-2.0%C, 0-5% Cr, 0-0.5% Al, 0-1% Si, 0-0.1% P, 0-0.02% S, a remainder of Fe, and other unavoidable impurities), and
wherein the steel tube has a microstructure with austenite as a main phase (Abstract, 97% or more austenite; see Claim 10).
Bae discloses carbides comprising a size of 0.5um or less, but fails to disclose film-shaped precipitates formed along austenite grain.
However, Bae discloses the claimed composition and austenite as a main phase (see above), and further discloses a hot-rolling and piping method which is substantially similar to that of the instant invention’s. Bae specifically discloses heating a steel slab to 1000-1250C, finish rolling from 950-1050C and from 850-1000C to a thickness of 8mm, cooling at 5C/s or more to a cooling temperature as low as 250C and then coiling, and further forming a pipe by electric resistance welding (para. [0018]-[0020]; para. [0109], wherein hot-rolled plate is 8mm thick; para. [0025] and para. [0028]). This method is substantially identical to the instant method of reheating from 1000-1250C, hot rolling with a finish temperature of 800C or more to a thickness of 4-20mm, cooling at 5C/s or more to a temperature less than 500C and then coiling with an average coiling temperature of less than 300C, and further piping by electric resistance welding (para. [0022]-[0028]; para. [0098]). Bae teaches that coiling at too large of a temperature coarsens carbides and lowers toughness, and it would be obvious to coil at the minimum temperature of 250C (and therefore an average coiling temperature below 300C), in order to maximize the toughness and to minimize carbide size (see also Abstract wherein Bae desires carbide sizes to be less than 0.5um).
Because Bae teaches a substantially identical method and discloses the claimed composition and main austenite phase, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the steel tube to comprise the claimed microstructure and the claimed film-shaped precipitates formed along austenite grain boundaries.
Bae discloses wherein the tube is produced from the hot-rolled steel plate through the same piping method (see above), and wherein the hot-rolled steel plate undergoes work hardening from piping (Abstract; para. [0001]; para. [0004]). Thus, while Bae fails to disclose and compare the hardness between the hot-rolled steel plate and the steel tube, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate wherein the hardness increases by 1.1 by the work hardening after piping because the invention of Bae is produced by the same hot-rolling method and the same piping method, and comprises the same composition and structure as claimed.
Additionally, the limitation regarding the hot-rolled steel plate hardness is a product-by-process limitation, as the hot-rolled steel plate is a feature of the process and the claims are directed to the product of a steel tube. [E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product (steel tube) itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113.
The claims are directed to a steel tube, and the limitations regarding the composition and structure of the steel tube have been met (see above). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the steel tube of Bae, which meets the claimed structure and is produced by the same hot-rolling and piping methods, comprise the same hardness as the instant invention.
When 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.
Regarding Claim 7, Bae is silent towards the hardness. However, as explained above (see Claim 6), Bae discloses a substantially identical method (hot-rolling and piping) and discloses the claimed composition and main austenite phase, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the steel tube to comprise the claimed microstructure (see precipitates claimed above; see Abstract in Bae, wherein carbides are 0.5um or less), and therefore also the claimed hardness of 250 HV or greater as well.
When 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kang (previously cited, KR 20210079218 A, English Machine Translation provided).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding Claim 1, Kang discloses a hot-rolled steel plate (para. [0015], steel sheet reads on the term plate) comprising:
8-25% Mn, 0.2-1.8% C, optionally 2% or more Cr, a balance of Fe and unavoidable impurities (para. [0013] and [0030]; Kang is silent towards Al, Si, P and S, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate these elements to be absent and therefore 0%, which reads on the claimed values 10-20% Mn, 0.6-2.0%C, 0-5% Cr, 0-0.5% Al, 0-1% Si, 0-0.1% P, 0-0.02% S, a remainder of Fe, and other unavoidable impurities), and
wherein the hot-rolled steel plate has a microstructure with austenite in an amount of 97area%, as claimed (para. [0013], 3area% or more carbides with austenite balance; 3area% carbides would comprise a balance of 97area% austenite), and
film-shaped precipitates formed along austenite grain boundaries (para. [0013]).
Kang fails to disclose wherein the hardness increases by 1.1 by work hardening after piping; however, the limitation regarding piping is an intended use limitation. The claims are directed to a hot-rolled steel plate, and the limitations regarding the composition and structure of the hot-rolled steel plate have been met (see above). The hot-rolled steel plate of Kang meets the claimed structure and therefore the claimed limitations have been met.
Regarding Claim 2, Kang discloses wherein the precipitate has a thickness of 01-2um (para. [0013], 0.5um or more).
Regarding Claim 3, Kang fails to disclose the claimed tensile strength and elongation; however, the composition and microstructure of Kang are the same as claimed (see Claim 1 above). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the steel of Kang comprise the claimed tensile strength of 800MPa or more and claimed elongation of 30% or more.
When 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.
Regarding Claim 4, Kang fails to disclose the claimed hardness; however, the composition and microstructure of Kang are the same as claimed (see Claim 1 above). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the steel of Kang comprise the claimed hardness of 220HV or more.
When 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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (previously cited, KR 20210079218 A, English Machine Translation provided), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Cugy (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed May 7, 2025, US 20080035248 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Kang fails to disclose the thickness of the steel sheet.
Cugy teaches that hot-rolled steel sheets are 1-10mm in order to be used for parts intended for wheels and vehicles (para. [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the hot-rolled sheet of Kim to a 1-10mm thickness, as taught by Cugy, in order to produce a hot-rolled sheet capable of being used for vehicle parts (such a disc brake), as desired by Kang (see teaching by Cugy above; see para. Abstract of Kang). Additionally, a change in thickness of the hot-rolled steel plate is considered a change of size and generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04.IV.A).
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (previously cited, KR 20210079228 A, English Machine Translation provided) in view of Bae (previously cited, KR 20190077794 A, US 20210054485 A1 used for English Equivalent).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a hot-rolled steel plate (para. [0015], steel sheet reads on the term plate) comprising:
10-25% Mn, 0.2-1.8% C, optionally 2% or more Cr, a balance of Fe and unavoidable impurities (Abstract; para. [0023]; Lee is silent towards Al, Si, P and S, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate these elements to be absent and therefore 0%, which reads on the claimed values 10-20% Mn, 0.6-2.0%C, 0-5% Cr, 0-0.5% Al, 0-1% Si, 0-0.1% P, 0-0.02% S, a remainder of Fe, and other unavoidable impurities), and
wherein the hot-rolled steel plate has a microstructure with austenite as a main phase (para. [0015], austenite as a main structure), and
film-shaped precipitates formed along austenite grain boundaries (Abstract).
Lee fails to disclose the claimed amount of austenite.
Bae teaches a microstructure comprising 97% or more austenite and 3% or less carbides in order to provide a microstructure which has excellent low-temperature toughness while avoiding cracking during forming (para. [0066]-[0068]; pipe making is a forming method).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised 97% or more austenite, as taught by Bae, for the invention disclosed by Lee, in order to provide excellent low-temperature toughness and in order to avoid cracking during forming (see teaching above).
Lee fails to disclose wherein the hardness increases by 1.1 by work hardening after piping; however, the limitation regarding piping is an intended use limitation. The claims are directed to a hot-rolled steel plate, and the limitations regarding the composition and structure of the hot-rolled steel plate have been met (see above, including teachings by Bae). The hot-rolled steel plate of Lee and Bae meets the claimed structure and therefore the claimed limitations have been met.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee discloses wherein the precipitate has a thickness of 0.1-2um (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee fails to disclose the claimed tensile strength and elongation; however, the composition and microstructure of Lee are the same as claimed (see Claim 1 above). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the steel of Lee comprise the claimed tensile strength of 800MPa or more and claimed elongation of 30% or more.
When 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.
Regarding Claim 4, Lee fails to disclose the claimed hardness; however, the composition and microstructure of Lee are the same as claimed (see Claim 1 above). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the steel of Lee comprise the claimed hardness of 220HV or more.
When 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (previously cited, KR 20210079228 A, English Machine Translation provided) in view of Bae (previously cited, KR 20190077794 A, US 20210054485 A1 used for English Equivalent), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Cugy (cited by Applicant in IDS filed May 7, 2025, US 20080035248 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee fails to disclose the thickness of the steel sheet.
Cugy teaches that hot-rolled steel sheets are 1-10mm in order to be used for parts intended for wheels and vehicles (para. [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the hot-rolled sheet of Lee to a 1-10mm thickness, as taught by Cugy, in order to produce a hot-rolled sheet capable of being used for vehicle parts (such a disc brake), as desired by Lee (see teaching by Cugy above; see para. Abstract of Lee). Additionally, a change in thickness of the hot-rolled steel plate is considered a change of size and generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04.IV.A).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 12, 2025, with respect to Claims 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Bae, with respect to Claims 1-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 over Lee (and Claim 5 in view of Cugy), with respect to Claims 1-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 over Kang (and Claim 5 in view of Cugy), and with respect to Claims 1-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kim in view of Kuyucak and Khan (and Claim 5 in view of Cugy), have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims further limiting the amount of austenite. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Bae, over Kang (and Cugy – Claim 5), and over Lee in view of Bae (and Cugy – Claim 5), as detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments directed to Kim, Kuyucak and Khan are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding Bae:
Applicant argues that Bae only discloses a cooling temperature of 250-600C prior to coiling, and does not disclose a coiling start temperature of 500C and an average coiling temperature below 300C (Remarks, Pg. 6-7).
Applicant argues that the coiling temperatures of the inventive examples of Bae only range from 380-480C (Remarks, Pg. 7).
Applicant argues that because Bae does not disclose the instant conditions for controlling coiling temperature and because Bae does not describe the microstructure changes or work-hardening effects resulting therefrom, it would not have been obvious to derive the instant coiling temperature conditions or mechanical properties (Remarks, Pg. 8).
These arguments are not found persuasive.
The cooling temperature prior to coiling (see para. [0084]-[0085]), and the coiling temperature (see Table 3 of Bae), is one and the same. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that an alloy cooled to 250C and then coiled would comprise coiling performed at 250C, and therefore would comprise both a coiling start temperature of 500C or less (250C), and an average coiling temperature of 300C or less (250C or less), which is the same method as the instant invention. Thus, the method of Bae would result in the same microstructural features, the same work hardening, and the same mechanical properties as claimed because the method of Bae is the same as the instant method.
In response to applicant's argument that Bae does not contemplate work hardening or the specifically claimed microstructural changes resulting from the coiling temperatures, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Regarding the inventive example coiling temperatures, the full disclosure of Bae recites a temperature of 250-600C. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments, and disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP 2123.I&II).
Regarding Kang:
Applicant argues that Kang discloses 3% or more carbides, which clearly indicates an area fraction of austenite less than 97% (Remarks, Pg. 8).
This argument is not found persuasive.
Kang discloses wherein the range of carbides is 3% or more with a balance of retained austenite. This range includes 3% carbides and a balance of austenite, which would be 97% austenite. 97% austenite reads on the claimed range of 97% or more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kolekar (Different Heat Treatment parameters investigation on microstructure, mechanical and wear properties of Hadfield Steel): teaches wherein hardness for Hadfield steels casted and heat treated within the temperature range 1000-1200 followed by quenching comprises a hardness from 262-283HV (Fig. 25 and Fig. 74, HT-2).
El-Bitar (“Improvement of Austenitic Hadfield Mn-Steel Properties by Thermomechanical Processing”): teaches wherein a network of carbides exist at grain boundaries in the as cast structure, and that hot-rolling significantly reduces the amount of carbides and increases wear resistance (Pg. 365, Col. 2, para. 1; Fig. 1 and Fig. 12; Conclusions).
Kim (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed January 31, 2024, US 20090074605 A1): discloses a hot-rolled steel plate (Abstract), comprising, by weight: 0.2-1.5% C, 10-25% Mn, 0.01-3% Al, 0-0.03% P, 0-0.03% S, 0.02-2.5% Si, and a balance of Fe and other unavoidable impurities (Abstract), and a microstructure which is single-phase austenite (para. [0007]).
Kim further discloses wherein the hot-rolled steel sheet comprises a tensile strength of 800 MPa and an elongation of 30% or more (para. [0008]; para. [0049], 40% or more; para. [0004], 30% or more elongation and tensile strength greater than 800MPa; Fig. 2(a) 0% reduction comprising a tensile strength of about 900-1000Mpa an elongation of about 55%).
Kuyucak (previously cited, “Heat-treatment Processing of Austenitic Manganese Steels”): discloses a plurality of thin carbide precipitates (0.2um or less) formed along austenite grain boundaries, which do not embrittle the steel and are coherent with the austenite, leading to nearly optimum toughness (Pg. 2, para. 1-2; Pg. 3, para. 3-4; Pg. 4, para. 2; Fig. 1(c)-(e), wherein multiple thin carbides are formed along the grain boundary; Fig. 2a). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that multiple thin carbides reads on the claimed term film-shaped because they carbides are thin like a film and formed along a grain boundary like a film.
Khan (previously cited, “Microstructural Changes in Hadfield Steel”): teaches wherein the inclusion of fine grain boundary carbides, such as from temperature treatment, increases hardness, including increases from about 9 HRC to at least 25HRC or more, such as 31HRC (Pg. 320, Col. 1, Para. 1 and Conclusions; Abstract; Fig. 8; 9 HRC, 25 HRC and 31 HRC equates to about 192HV, 266HV and 310HV, respectively).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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 Walker can be reached at (571)-272-3458. 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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735