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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 are amended in view of applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 1/12/2024. Therefore, claims 1-13 are currently under examination.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-12, drawn to a process for producing a TRIP steel strip, classified in C21D 1/02.
II. Claim 13, drawn to a TRIP steel strip, classified in C22C 38/04.
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the claimed TRIP steel strip can be made by another and materially different process such as a process wherein bainite is formed prior to the formation of ferric microstructure.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Kourosh Salehi on 4/23/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-12. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 1-12 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claim 1 recites the broad recitation “the core of the finished strip has predominantly, …, austenitic microstructure”, and the claim also recites “particularly preferably completely, austenitic microstructure” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 4 recites the broad recitation “a first cooling rate of the core of the finished strip is established” and “a third cooling rate of the core of the finished strip is established”, and the claim also recites “preferably the first cooling rate and/or the third cooling rate of the core of the finished strip is 20K/s to 400K/s inclusive” and “in particular 50 K/s to 200I/s inclusive”, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 5 recites the broad recitation “a first exit temperature (TA1) above a ferrite precipitation temperature (Ar3 temperature)”, and the claim also recites “in particular of 800°C to 950°C” and “in particular of 830°C to 860°C” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 6 recites the broad recitation “a second time interval (t2) of 3 seconds to 8 seconds”, and the claim also recites “in particular of 4 seconds to 5 seconds” which is the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 7 recites the broad recitation “a third exit temperature (TA3) of 580°C to 680°C inclusive”, and the claim also recites “in particular of 620°C to 660°C inclusive” and “preferably the third exit temperature (TA3) is greater than the austenite-ferrite conversion temperature (Ar1)” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 7 recites the broad recitation “a fourth exit temperature (TA4) of 180°C to 450°C inclusive”, and the claim also recites “in particular of 330°C to 420°C inclusive” and in particular of 360°C to 390°C inclusive” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 9 recites the broad recitation “a thickness of the precursor strip upon entry into the finishing mill train is 4mm to 25mm”, and the claim also recites “in particular 6mm to 18mm” which is the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 9 recites the broad recitation “the finishing mill train reduces the thickness of the precursor strip to that of the finished strip of 0.6mm to 6mm”, and the claim also recites “in particular 0.8mm to 2mm” which is the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 10 recites the broad recitation “the finished strip has a chemical composition in percent by weight of 0.15% to 0.25%, …, inclusive of C”, and the claim also recites “in particular 0.19% to 0.21%, inclusive of C” which is the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 10 recites the broad recitation “1.0% to 2.0%, …, of Mn”, and the claim also recites “in particular 1.4% to 1.6%, of Mn” which is the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 10 recites the broad recitation “1.0% to 1.5%, …, of Si”, and the claim also recites “in particular 1.1% to 1.3%, of Si” which is the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 10 recites the broad recitation “0.3% to 0.7%, …, inclusive of Al”, and the claim also recites “in particular 0.45% to 0.55%, inclusive of Al” which is the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 12 recites the broad recitation “the intermediate heating means heats a core of the precursor strip by at least 100°C to 300°C inclusive”, and the claim also recites “in particular to 1100°C to 1180°C” which is the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bainite starting temperature(BS)" in the third line from the bottom of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a metastable austenite phase proportion”. However, neither claim 3 or instant specification provide any definition to ascertain the scope of what a metastable austenite mean. It is unclear when or under what condition or characteristics an austenite phase is considered metastable. Therefore, the instant claim 3 is vague and indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the fourth exit temperature (TA4)" in the third line from the bottom of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the broad recitation “the intermediate heating means heats a core of the precursor strip by at least 100°C to 300°C inclusive”. It is unclear if the at least 100°C to 300°C inclusive is directed to a minimum temperature range for the core of the precursor strip or if it is the entire temperature range with a minimum temperature of 100°C and a maximum temperature of 300°C
Claims 2 and 10 are also rejected since they depend on rejected claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 4101552, whose English equivalent is Baumgartner et al. US 2024/0269734 A1 (Baumgartner).
Baumgartner teaches a process for producing a steel strip in an integrated casting-rolling plant(abstract) comprising a prerolling train(Fig. 1 #20), a finish-rolling train (Fig. 1 #50), a cooling zone (Fig.1 #55) and a winding device (Fig. 1 #60).
Regarding claim 1, the finish-rolling train of Baumgartner further comprises a first stand group for finish-rolling the prerolled strip and a second stand group for receiving the finish-rolled step and forced cooling it at a cooling rate of greater than 20°C/s and less than 200°C/s[0012]. Therefore, the first stand group of the finish-rolling train of Baumgartner reads on the claimed finishing mill train. The second stand group of the finish-rolling train of Baumgartner and the cooling zone of Baumgartner reads on the claimed cooling sector.
Baumgartner additionally teaches that the a continuous thin-slab steel strand coming off of the continuous casting machine, which reads on the claimed hot precursor strip, is fed into the prerolling train[0045].
The second stand group of Baumgartner, where the forced cooling of finish-rolled strip takes place, reads on the claimed first cooling group of the cooling sector. The core of the finish-rolled strip at the exit temperature of the second stand group of Baumgartner after forced cooling is 350-700°C[0019], which encompasses the claimed second exit temperature of 620-700°C. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(II). The selection of claimed second exit temperature from the exit temperature of the second stand group of Baumgartner would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Baumgartner teach the same utilities in its second stand group exit temperature. Additionally, Baumgartner teaches that the microstructure of the pre-rolled strip is austenitic[0078], and since the exit temperature of the second strand group of Baumgartner is similar to the claimed second exit temperature, and the cooling rate at the second stand group of Baumgartner is the same as the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the finish-rolled steel strip cooled by the second stand group of Baumgartner to have also exhibit predominantly austenitic microstructure as claimed.
Baumgartner further teaches that the strip exiting from second stand group of Baumgartner is fed into a cooling zone (Fig. 1 #55) in order to force-cool the finish-rolled strip[0092], which reads on the claimed third cooling group to force cool the finish-rolled strip to a third exit temperature. The steel strip transported from the second stand group of Baumgartner and the cooling zone would have implicitly experienced the second cooling rate as claimed.
Additionally, since Baumgartner teaches that the exit temperature of the steel strip after finish-rolling prior to the second stand group is 830-950°Cand the exit temperature from the second stand group of Baumgartner 350-700°C[0019], which means the steel strip would have gone through the temperature range for ferrite formation(i.e. <912°C). Therefore, the examiner concludes at least some of the microstructure in the steel strip of Baumgartner would have comprised ferrite during the transportation from the second stand group to the cooling zone under a cooling rate that reads on the claimed second cooling rate.
Lastly, since the cooling zone as taught by Baumgartner further cools the finish-rolled steel strip, which would have pass through the bainite temperature phase(i.e. 125-550°C), the examiner concludes that at least part of the microstructure in the steel strip of Baumgartner would have turned into bainite as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Baumgartner does not teach cooling by cooling means(i.e. forced cooling) when transporting the steel strip from the second stand group to the cooling zone, which implies that the cooling occurs naturally and forced cooling is deactivated as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Baumgartner further teaches that the coiling is taking place after the finish-rolled strip is dried and cooled[0093], which implies that the finish-rolled strip from the cooling zone is cooled to ambient temperature as claimed, which would have resulted in the claimed metastable austenite phase in portions of its microstructure as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, the second stand group and the cooling zone as taught by Baumgartner would have inherently had their own cooling rate. Baumgartner further teaches the cooling taking place at the second stand group is happening at a cooling rate of greater than 20°C/s and less than 200°C/s[0012], which reads on the claimed cooling rate.
Regarding claim 5, Baumgartner further teaches that the exit temperature of the steel strip after finish-rolling prior to the second stand group is 830-950°C[0019], which reads on the claimed first exit temperature.
Regarding claim 7, the core of the finish-rolled strip at the exit temperature of the second stand group of Baumgartner after forced cooling is 350-700°C[0019], which encompasses the claimed second exit temperature of 580-680°C. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(II). The selection of claimed second exit temperature from the exit temperature of the second stand group of Baumgartner would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Baumgartner teach the same utilities in its second stand group exit temperature. Although Baumgartner does not explicitly teach the claimed exit temperature upon exiting the cooling zone, Baumgartner does teach that the exit temperature of the cooling zone is preferably less than a bainite start temperature[0016], which would have overlapped the claimed fourth exit temperature. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 8, although Baumgartner does not explicitly teach the claimed cooling duration (i.e. fourth time interval) to cool the strip exiting the cooling zone to ambient temperature, it would have been well within the skills of an ordinary artisan to have arrived at the claimed cooling duration via routine optimization in order to achieve the final ambient temperature.
Regarding claim 9, although Baumgartner does not explicitly teach the claimed precursor strip thickness and the claimed finished strip thickness, it would have been well within a skilled artisan to have achieved the claimed precursor step and finished strip thickness via routine optimization in order to achieve desired steel strip thickness depending on the requirements of different applications.
Regarding claim 11, Baumgartner further teaches that the integrated casting-rolling plant comprises a continuous casting machine having a mold and a prerolling train (Fig. 1 #20 and #90), which reads on the claimed roughing mill train. Baumgartner further teaches that the metal melt cast in the mold is partially solidified into thin-slab strain and is further supported and defected[0012]. The thin-slab is then pre-rolled and subsequently finish-rolled[0012].
Regarding claim 12, Baumgartner further teaches the presence of an intermediate heater(Fig. 1 #40) between the prerolling train and the finish-rolling train, wherein the intermediate heater heats the core temperature of the pre-rolled strip to about 1050-1100°C[0074].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 10 are not rejected by prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is identified to be Baumgartner, whose teaching are discussed in detail in the section 16 above.
However, Baumgartner does not teach or fairly suggest, either alone or in combination, the claimed transportation time (i.e. second time interval as recited in claim 6) of 3-8seconds between the second stand group (i.e. first cooling group) and the cooling zone(i.e. third cooling group) as recited in claim 6.
Baumgartner also does not teach or fairly suggest, either alone or in combination, a finished strip with claimed chemical composition as recited in claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOIS L ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1248. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45.
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.
LOIS ZHENG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/LOIS L ZHENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights