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, 4, 7-8, 10, 12-13 and 18-20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 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.
The terms “flat” and “high local cold-formability” in claim 1 (line 1-2) are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “flat” and “high local cold-formability” are 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. Please specify what term is used to address “local cold-formability” and at what value, a local cold formability is considered high. Appropriate correction is required.
Please define the meaning of C, N, Ti, Nb and Mo in line 22 in claim 1.
Claim 1 recites one or more elements of Cr, Ni, V, B or Ca in line 24, which is an informal Markush Group. Please use the phrase “one or more elements selected from the group consisting of A, B, C, D and E”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “an absolute deviation of a maximum of 12 vol.% of the proportion of ferrite in the surface region or in the 1/4 thickness region of the flat steel product, or in to the 1/2 thickness region of the flat steel product” in line 28-31. It’s unclear the recited deviation is relative to what value. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites that the bainite is a mixture of bainitic ferrite and at least one selected from martensite, residual austenite, lower bainite and pearlite. Bainite is a structure different from martensite, residual austenite, lower bainite and pearlite. Thus, the meaning of claim 7 is confusing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “the grain extension of all microstructure constituents in a 1/2 thickness position of the flat steel product” in line 1-2. The meaning of “grain extension” is unclear. Please also define the meaning of “value”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “the main constituent of bainitic ferrite”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites shear texture components and rolling texture components. The meaning of shear texture components and rolling texture components is not defined. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “high local cold-formability” in claim 13 (line 1-2) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high local cold-formability” 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. Please specify what term is used to address “local cold-formability” and at what value, a local cold formability is considered high. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites one or more elements of Cr, Ni, V, B or Ca in line 19, which is an informal Markush Group. Please use the phrase “one or more elements selected from the group consisting of A, B, C, D and E”. Appropriate correction is required.
The terms “sufficient low enough” and “advantageous microstructure” in claim 13 (line 30-31) are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “sufficient low enough” and “advantageous microstructure” are 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. Appropriate correction is required.
Please define the meaning of C, Nb, V, Ti, Al and Si in line 27-28 in claim 13.
The terms “suitable” and “sufficient” in claim 13 (line 33) are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “suitable” and “sufficient” are 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. Appropriate correction is required.
Please define the meaning of C, Mn, Si, Mo, Cr, Ni and V in line 32 in claim 13.
Claim 13 recites HP, T and t in line 35. Please define what HP is. It’s unclear what temperature is “T” and what time is “t”. It’s a cooling process. The temperature changes with time during cooling. Please explain the meaning of
PNG
media_image1.png
21
354
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 recites up to 0.6 wt% Cr, up to 0.6 wt% Ni, up to 0.2 wt% V and up to 0.01 wt% B. Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and recites more than 0.1 wt% Cr, more than 0.1 wt% Ni, more than 0.01 wt% V and more than 0.0005 wt% B, which cover a composition range than is greater than 0.6 wt% Cr, greater than 0.6 wt% Ni, greater than 0.2 wt% V and greater than wt% B. Thus, claim 6 does not further limit claim 5. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 1 recites that the carbon-rich microstructure constituents is selected from at least one of martensite, residual austenite and pearlite. Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and recites that the carbon-rich microstructure constituents is selected from at least one of martensite, residual austenite, lower bainite and pearlite. which does not further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoi (US 2020/0024679).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 7-9 and 20, Yokoi teaches (Abstract) a hot-rolled steel sheet with a composition that overlaps with the instant claimed composition and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected amounts of each element from the ranges disclosed in Yokoi to produce a hot-rolled steel sheet that meets the recited composition in claims 1 and 4. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Element
Claim 1
(mass %)
Yokoi
(mass %)
Overlap
(mass %)
C
0.04-0.08
0.02-0.07
0.04-0.07
Si
0.1-0.6
0.05-1.7
0.1-0.6
Mn
1.0-2.0
0.6-2.5
1.0-2.0
P
≤0.06
≤0.05
≤0.05
S
≤0.01
≤0.005
≤0.005
N
≤0.012
>0.003-0.006
>0.003-0.006
Al
0.0-0.06
0.005-0.02
0.005-0.02
Ti
0-0.18
0.015-0.17
0.015-0.17
Nb
0-0.08
0-0.1
0-0.08
Mo
0-0.35
0-1
0-0.35
Fe
Balance
Balance
Balance
Yokoi discloses an example containing C, Mn, P, S, N, Al, Ti, Nb and Mo that meet the recited ranges and Si less than the recited Si amount (See Table 1, Steel C). Yokoi discloses that 0.05-2.0 wt.% Si is contained in the steel to reduce oxygen concentration ([0238]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the amount of Si in Steel C of Yokoi in order to reduce oxygen content as disclosed by Yokoi. Steel C contains Ti+Nb=0.117 wt.%, which meets the limitation that Ti+Nb is more than 0.06 wt% and that the maximum amount of Ti+Nb is 0.2 wt% as recited in claims 1 and 3. Steel C has (C/12+N/14)/(Ti/48+Nb/93+Mo/96) of 1.6.
Yokoi discloses an example made of Steel C contains 10 area% ferrite and 90 area% bainite (Table 4, Test No. C), which meets the recited structure limitation in claims 1 and 7-9. Line 28-31 of claim 1 and claim 20 do not recite the deviation is relative to ferrite volume of what region, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the volume percent of ferrite in ½ thickness region is likely to be very close to the volume percent of ferrite in 5/8 thickness region as these two regions are close together.
Yokoi discloses that Test No. 29 made of Steel C has tensile strength (TS) of 786 MPa, TS x u-EL of 8005 and TS x λ of 66860. Thus, λ=66860/786=85% and u-EL=10.2%, which meet the recite hole expansion ratio and the elongation at fracture recited in claim 1. True uniform elongation is calculated to be 9.7 based on u-EL=10.2% and true expansion ratio is calculated to be 61.55% based on λ=66860/786=85%. Thus, (true uniform elongation x true hole expansion ratio)0.5 is 0.244 and the ratio of local to global cold formability is 6.35.
Yokoi is silent on yield strength ratio. However, yield strength ratio is determined by steel composition and steel structure. In view of the fact that Yokoi teaches a steel having composition and structure that meets the recited composition and structure in claim 1, one of ordinary skill would expect that the steel sheet disclosed by Yokoi to meet the recited yield strength ratio in claim 1. “Where 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 I.
Regarding claim 2, Yokoi discloses that the Ca amount is 0-0.01 wt.% (Abstract), which meets the limitation recited in claim 2.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Yokoi discloses that the steel contains 0-2 wt. % Cr, 0-2.0 wt.% Ni, 0-0.3 wt. % V and 0-0.01 wt.% B (Abstract), which overlap the recited composition ranges in claims 5 and 6. 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 2144.5 I. Thus, claims 5 and 6 are obvious over Yokoi.
Regarding claim 11, Yokoi discloses that the precipitates have diameter of 1-3 nm ([0171]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 11.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Yokoi discloses that the steel sheet can be used in automobiles by press working ([0007]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 18. Using steel sheet in making chassis is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, claims 18 and 19 are obvious over Yokoi.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoi (US 2020/0024679), and further in view of Toda (US 2016/0017465).
Regarding claims 13 and 17, Yokoi teaches ([0262] to [0273]; Table 2) a method of making a hot-rolled steel sheet, comprising melting and casting the melt into a slab ([0277]); slab reheating at 1260 ºC or less such as at 1230 ºC ([0249]), hot rolling at a final rolling temperature of Ar3+30 ºC or above such as at 950 ºC ([0262]), cooling to coiling temperature of 450-650 ºC (such as 600 ºC) at a cooling rate of 10 ºC/s or more ([0264] to [0271]), which overlap the recited processing parameters in claim 13. 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 2144.5 I.
Yokoi discloses (Abstract) a hot-rolled steel sheet with a composition that overlaps with the instant claimed composition and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected amounts of each element from the ranges disclosed in Yokoi to produce a hot-rolled steel sheet that meets the recited composition in claim 13. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Element
Claim 13
(mass %)
Yokoi
(mass %)
Overlap
(mass %)
C
0.04-0.08
0.02-0.07
0.04-0.07
Si
0.1-0.6
0.05-1.7
0.1-0.6
Mn
1.0-2.0
0.6-2.5
1.0-2.0
P
≤0.06
≤0.05
≤0.05
S
≤0.01
≤0.005
≤0.005
N
≤0.012
>0.003-0.006
>0.003-0.006
Al
0.0-0.06
0.005-0.02
0.005-0.02
Ti
0-0.18
0.015-0.17
0.015-0.17
Nb
0-0.08
0-0.1
0-0.08
Mo
0-0.35
0-1
0-0.35
Fe
Balance
Balance
Balance
Yokoi discloses an example containing C, Mn, P, S, N, Al, Ti, Nb and Mo that meet the recited ranges and Si less than the recited Si amount (See Table 1, Steel C). Yokoi discloses that 0.05-2.0 wt.% Si is contained in the steel to reduce oxygen concentration ([0238]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the amount of Si in Steel C of Yokoi in order to reduce oxygen content as disclosed by Yokoi. Steel C contains Ti+Nb=0.117 wt.%, which meets the limitation that Ti+Nb is more than 0.06 wt% and that the maximum amount of Ti+Nb is 0.2 wt% as recited in claim 13. Steel C has (C/12+N/14)/(Ti/48+Nb/93+Mo/96) of 1.6.
Steel C has EWTmin=814.6 and Test No. 29 made of Steel C has finish rolling temperature of 950 ºC, which meets the recited EWT≥ EWTmin in claim 13.
Steel C has HTmax=632 and Test No. 29 made of Steel C has coiling temperature of 600 ºC, which meets the recited HT≤HTmax in claim 13.
Yokoi does not the cooling rate from coiling temperature to 100 ºC. Toda teaches a method for making a steel sheet that is analogous to the method of Yokoi (See [0023] to [0126]). Toda discloses a hot-rolled coil is cooled from coiling temperature to 25 ºC at a cooling rate of 0.15 ºC/min or less in order to promote bainite transformation ([0107]; [0108]; [0122]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cool hot rolled coil from coiling temperature to 25 ºC at a cooling rate of 0.15 ºC/min or less (i.e. ºC/h or less) as taught by Toda in the process of Yokoi in order to promote bainite transformation as disclosed by Toda. The cooling rate disclosed by Toda overlaps the recited cooling rate in claim 13. 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 2144.5 I. In view of the fact that Yokoi in view of Toda teaches a cooling rate that meets the recited cooling rate in claim 13, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the cooling process from coiling temperature to 25ºC disclosed by Yokoi in view of Toda to meet 17000≤HP≤18800. “Where 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 I.
Yokoi discloses an example made of Steel C contains 10 area% ferrite and 90 area% bainite (Table 4, Test No. C), which meets the recited structure limitation in claim 1.
Yokoi discloses that Test No. 29 made of Steel C has tensile strength (TS) of 786 MPa, TS x u-EL of 8005 and TS x λ of 66860. Thus, λ=66860/786=85% and u-EL=10.2%, which meet the recite hole expansion ratio and the elongation at fracture recited in claim 13. True uniform elongation is calculated to be 9.7 based on u-EL=10.2% and true expansion ratio is calculated to be 61.55% based on λ=66860/786=85%. Thus, (true uniform elongation x true hole expansion ratio)0.5 is 0.244 and the ratio of local to global cold formability is 6.35.
Yokoi in view of Toda is silent on yield strength ratio. However, yield strength ratio is determined by steel composition and steel structure. In view of the fact that Yokoi teaches a steel having composition and structure that meets the recited composition and structure in claim 13, one of ordinary skill would expect that the steel sheet disclosed by Yokoi to meet the recited yield strength ratio in claim 13. “Where 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 I.
Regarding claim 14, Yokoi discloses that the steel has a thickness of 1.6 mm ([0232]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 14.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Yokoi discloses that coating is applied to the steel sheet ([0091]). Applying a zinc-based metallic coating to improve corrosion resistance is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, claims 15 and 16 are obvious over Yokoi.
Claims 10 and 12 have not been examined due to the indefinite language.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights