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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 and 9-10 have been cancelled; Claims 6-8 have been amended; Claims 11-16 are added as new claims. Claims 6-8 and 11-16 remain for examination, wherein claim 6 is an independent claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 8/19/2025 has been recorded.
Previous Rejections/Objections
Previous objection of Claim 9 because of the informalities is withdrawn since this claim has been cancelled in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 2/12/2026.
Previous rejection of Claims 1-10 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 2/12/2026.
Previous rejection of Claim(s) 1-7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manabe et al (US-PG-pub 2020/0370142 A1, thereafter PG’142) in view of Nagao et al (US-PG-pub 2006/0048864 A1, thereafter PG’864) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 2/12/2026.
Previous rejection of Claim(s) 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manabe et al (US-PG-pub 2020/0370142 A1, thereafter PG’142) in view of Nagao et al (US-PG-pub 2006/0048864 A1, thereafter PG’864) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 2/12/2026.
However, in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 2/12/2026, and newly recorded reference(s). a new ground rejection has listed as following:
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 6-8 and 11-16 is 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. The term “high-temperature austenite” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 7-8 and 11-16 depend on claim 6, they are also rejected. Proper amendment is necessary.
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) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (CN 103305675 A, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’675) in view of Okui et al (JP 2005 021899 A, with on-line translation, thereafter JP’899).
Regarding claim 6, CN’675 teaches a steel cord for hot rolled plate control method of decarburization on the surface layer. (Abstract of CN’675). CN’675 specify all of the essential process steps including heating before rolling, hot-rolling, and cooling after rolling as claimed in the instant claim. the comparison between the heating parameters disclosed by CN’675 and those in the instant claim is listed as following. All of the temperature and time duration disclosed by CN’675 reads on the claimed parameters in the first heating stage, second heating stage and soaking stage. The soaking temperature range disclosed by CN’675 overlap the claimed soaking temperature range, which creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize soaking temperature as claimed from the disclosure of CN’675 since CN’675 teaches the same cord steel as claimed throughout whole disclosing range. It is noted that CN’675 does not specify pre-heating under temperature less than 400oC as claimed in the instant claim. However preheating a austenite steel under temperature less than 400oC before further heating is a well-known technique as demonstrated by JP’899. JP’899 teaches a manufacturing process for a austenitic stainless steel plate work-hardened by cold rolling (Abstract and par.[0003] of JP’899). JP’899 specify that applying pre-heating temperature 300-500oC for 3 min. or more before further rolling reduction (par.[0029]-[0031] of JP’899), which overlaps the claimed pre-heating conditions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize pre-heating parameters as claimed from the disclosure of JP’899 in the process of CN’675 since JP’899 teaches adjusting pre-heating temperature for further rolling effect. (par.[0029]-[0031] of JP’899).
Element
From instant Claim 6
From CN’675
Within range
Pre-heating:
T: ≤ 400 oC
t: ≥ 5 min.
--
--
First heating stage
T: 400-800 oC
t: ≥ 10 min.
T: 700-760 oC
t: 56-66 min
T: 400-800 oC
t: ≥ 10 min.
Second heating stage
T: 800-1000 oC
t: 60-100 min.
T: 890-970 oC
t: 56-66 min
T: 890-970 oC
t: 56-66 min
Soaking stage
T: 1000-1040 oC
t: 20-60 min
T: 970-1010 oC
t: 42-52 min
Overlapping range
1000-1010oC
Reads on t: 42-52 min
Regarding claims 7 and 8, CN’675 specify the temperature control rolling forming plate strip in the step of controlling the rolling temperature is 950 to 980℃ degrees centigrade; the spinning forming rolling step in controlling spinning temperature is 860 ~ 890℃ (abstract and par.[0032] of CN’675), which reads on the finish rolling temperature (cl.7). The controlling spinning temperature is 860 ~ 890℃ (abstract and par.[0032] of CN’675) is close to the inlet temperature range and spinning temperature range as claimed in the instant claim 8), which creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the well-known technique and optimize the sizing and reducing temperature ranges from the disclosing of CN’675 in order to obtain the steel cord for hot rolled plate control method of decarburization on the surface layer. (Abstract of CN’675).
Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manabe et al (US-PG-pub 2020/0370142 A1, thereafter PG’142) in view of Nagao et al (US-PG-pub 2006/0048864 A1, thereafter PG’864).
Regarding claims 11 and 16, US’142 teaches a bare drawn steel wire obtained by wire drawing a high carbon steel wire rod, or a coated drawn steel wire obtained by wire drawing a wire rod and thereafter coating the wire rod with Zn plating or the like is used for various applications such as a drawn steel wire for a bridge cable, a drawn steel wire for prestressed concrete, and a drawn steel wire used for various drawn steel wire ropes (Abstract and par.[0003] of PG’142), which reads on the cord steel (cl.11). The comparison between the claimed alloy composition ranges and microstructure, disclosed by PG’142 has been listed in following table. All of the alloy composition ranges disclosed by PG’142 (claim 1 and par.[0028]-[0066] of PG’142) overlap the claimed composition ranges as claimed in the instant claim, which creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the alloy composition ranges from the disclosing of PG’142 since PG’142 teaches the same cord steel throughout whole disclosing range. Regarding the formula ([Nb] + [V])/[N] = 3-4.5 in the instant claim, the formula is recognized as general formula fully depended on the steel composition ranges of [Nb], [V], and [N] in the alloy. It is well settled that there is no invention in the discovery of a general formula if it covers a composition and dimension described in the prior art. In re Cooper and Foley 1943 C.D.357, 553 O.G.177; 57 USPQ 117, Taklatwalla v. Marburg. 620 O.G.685, 1949 C.D.77, and In re Pilling, 403 O.G.513, 44 F(2) 878, 1931 C.D.75. In the instant case, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the selection of the proportions of [Nb], [V], and [N] from PG’142 in order to meet the claimed equation would appear to require no more than routine investigation by those ordinary skilled in the art. In re Austin, et al., 149 USPQ 685, 688. PG’142 does not specify the tire cord application (cl.11) and tire frame (cl.16). PG’864 teaches a hot-rolled wire rod: the wire rod being a hot-rolled wire rod 5.0 mm or more in diameter, containing in mass C: 0.6 to 1.0%, Si: 0.1 to 1.5%, Mn: 0.3 to 1.0%, P: 0.02% or less, and S: 0.02% or less; not less than 90% of the wire rod in area percentage being composed of a pearlite structure (abstract and claims of PG’864) for high-strength steel wires such as steel cords, tire bead wires, steel wires for prestressed concrete, wire ropes, etc. (par.[0001]-[0003] of PG’864), which overlap all of the essential alloy composition ranges claimed in the instant claim 1, MPEP 2144 05 I, and reads on the intended tire steel application as claimed in the instant claims 1 and 10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the hot-rolled steel wire for tire cord application as demonstrated by PG’864 for the alloy of PG’142 since PG’142 and PG’864 teach the same high carbon steel for steel cord application throughout whole disclosing range. The method for preparing the claimed alloy is recognized as process limitation in a product-by-process claim. The claimed tire cord steel is manipulated by the product (composition, microstructure, and properties) itself. The claimed manufacturing process does not add patentable weight for the instant claim. MPEP 2113 [R-1].
Element
From instant Claim 1 (mass%)
From PG’142 (mass %)
overlapping range
(mass %)
C
0.80-0.85
0.75-1.10
0.80-0.85
Mn
0.46-0.59
0.1-1.0
0.46-0.59
Nb
0.006-0.012
0-0.10
0.006-0.012
V
0.006-0.012
0.-0.10
0.006-0.012
Si
0.15-0.25
0.1-1.40
0.15-0.25
P
≤ 0.01
0.030 or less
≤ 0.01
S
≤ 0.01
0.030 or less
≤ 0.01
B
0.0005-0.0009
0-0.0030
0.0005-0.0009
Als
≤ 0.0008
0.1 or less
≤ 0.0008
Ti
≤ 0.0005
0.1 or less
≤ 0.0005
Fe
Balance + impurities
Balance + impurities
Balance + impurities
Regarding claim 12, PG’142 teaches including includes 90% or more of a drawn pearlite by an area ratio with proeutectoid cementite precipitates in refined lamellar spacing of pearlite (claim 1, par.[0017] and [0029] of PG’142), which reads on the claimed structure as claimed in the instant claim.
Regarding claims 13-15, the claimed features of interlamellar spacing of the lamellar (cl.3); sorbitizing rate (cl.4); and volume fraction of sorbite (cl.5) are recognized as cord steel features fully depended on the alloy composition and manufacturing process steps. PG’142 in view of PG’864 teaches the similar cord steel composition manufacturing by the heating before rolling, hot-rolling, and cooling after rolling process steps (par.[0097]-[0098] of PG’142). The claimed features, for example, the lamellar (cl.13); sorbitizing rate (cl.14); and volume fraction of sorbite (cl.15) would be highly expected included in the cord steel of PG’142 in view of PG’864. MPEP 2112 01 and 2145 II.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to Claims 6-8 and 11-16 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground rejection as stated as above. Regarding the arguments related to the amended features, the Examiner’s position has stated as above.
Notes: the previous allowable subject matter (previous office action dated 12/05/2025) require adding not only limitations in previous claim 9, but also limitations in previous claim 1 into the claim 6. This instant claim 6 does not include limitation for specific alloy composition, any hot rolling austenite steel may in the claimed technique field. Therefore, instant claim 6 does not include allowable subject matter as stated above.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
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 J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734