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 . The previous office action is replaced.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2 and 5-20 are pending with claims 1, 5 and 8 preliminarily amended and wherein claims 1-2, 5-10 and 15-20 are currently under examination and claims 11-14 are withdrawn from consideration pursuant 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected manufacturing process of low carbon low alloy Q&P steel or low carbon alloy hot galvanized Q&P steel. Applicant’s election of claims 1-10 and 15-20 was made with traverse in the Response filed on February 5, 2026. Applicant traverses on the ground that claim 1 has been amended to recite limitation of the metallographic structure of the low carbon alloy Q&P steel and Thomas et al. (‘798) does not disclose the control of heating rate during the heating process, nor the metallographic structure of the steel plate as now recited in claim 1 and since Thomas (‘798) provides no technical suggestion for obtaining the metallographic structure of the claimed steel plate through rapid heating treatment and should not be considered a relevant prior art against pending claims of the instant application.
In response, the claim 1 that was presented to the Examiner for examination required a quenched and partitioned steel with a tensile strength greater than or equal to 1180 MPa with specified contents of carbon, silicon, manganese, phosphorus, sulfur and aluminum with optional contents of chromium, molybdenum, titanium, niobium and vanadium and the reference to Thomas et al. (‘798) addressed all the features of claim 1 at that time providing for a valid lack of unity restriction between the independent product claims and the independent process claims. Applicant’s arguments regarding later-made amendments to previously presented claim 1 are therefore not persuasive as they do not pertain to the claims that were evaluated at that time.
Second, the Applicant primarily argues that the invention described in these claims are not “independent” as defined in MPEP §803 and each pertains to the same corresponding “special technical features” which are so linked as to form a single general inventive concept and if search and examination of two or more inventions can be made without “serious burden”, the Examiner must examine them on the merits if the claims are directed to distinct or independent inventions.
In response, the same or similar products can be made in different or substantially similar ways. A reference was previously provided that read on independent claim 1. Just because Applicant chose to amend it does not negate the necessity of restriction. Although some of the searching may overlap, to examine both of these inventions would require not only additional searching but also would require consideration of additional 112 issues, consideration of the combinability of prior art references, the formulation of rejections, etc. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-2, 5-10 and 15-20 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.
Claim 1 and dependents recite the limitation “A low carbon low alloy Q&P steel or low carbon low alloy hot-galvanized Q&P steel having a tensile strength of > 1180MPa” which is not clear if the tensile strength is directed either steel or only to the low carbon low alloy hot-galvanized Q&P steel.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the metallographic structure" in lines 6 and 11 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the matrix structure” in lines 8 and 12 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the martensitic strengthening phase grains” in lines 9-10 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In line 11 of claim 1, it is recited “hot-galvanized Q&P steel”. However, in line 1 of claim 1, it is recited “A low carbon low alloy Q&P steel or low carbon low alloy hot-galvanized Q&P steel”. It is unclear if the scope of the claim requires galvanization or not.
In line 14 of claim 1, it is recited “the martensitic reinforced phase grains”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In lines 2-3 of claim 2, it is recited “in the low carbon low alloy Q&P steel and low carbon low alloy hot-dip galvanized Q&P steel” whereas in lines 1-2 of claim 2, it is recited “The low carbon low alloy Q&P steel or low carbon low alloy hot-galvanized Q&P steel”. It is unclear if Applicant is intended two different steel (one being galvanized and one being not galvanized) or if Applicant intends to only one of a steel that is not galvanized and a steel that is galvanized.
With respect to the recitation “the C content is in a range selected from a group consisting of 0.17~0.23%, 0.19~0.21% and 0.18~0.21%”in claim 2,
With respect to the recitation “the Si content is in a range selected from a group consisting of 1.1~1.7%, 1.3~1.5%, 1.4~2.0% and 1.6~1.8%”in claim 2, 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). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitations 1.1~1.7% and 1.4~2.0% and the claim also recites 1.3~1.5% and 1.6~1.8% which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) 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.
With respect to the recitation “the Mn content is in a range selected from a group consisting of 1.6~2.2%, 1.8~2.0%, 2.4~3.0% and 2.6~2.8%”in claim 2, 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). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitations 1.6~2.2% and 2.4~3.0% and the claim also recites 1.8~2.0% and 2.6~2.8% which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) 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.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). This “such as” language applies to the elements of chromium, niobium, titanium and vanadium.
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). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “has a yield strength of ≥660MPa, a tensile strength of ≥1180MPa, an elongation of ≥18%, a product of strength and elongation ≥24GPa%”, and the claim also recites “a yield strength of 668~1112MPa, a tensile strength of 1181~1350MPa, an elongation of 18.9~24.2%, a product of strength and elongation of 24.1~28.97GPa%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) 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.
In lines 1-2 of claim 5, it is recited “The low carbon low alloy Q&P steel or low carbon low alloy hot-dip galvanized Q&P steel” whereas in lines 3 and 5 of claim 5 it is recited “the low carbon low alloy Q&P steel”. It is unclear if the claim is limited to the galvanized steel or if the claim is open to the ungalvanized steel as well and if the limitations apply to that steel or not.
In lines 1-2 of claim 6, it is recited “The low carbon low alloy Q&P steel or low carbon low alloy hot-dip galvanized Q&P steel” whereas in line 3 of claim 6 it is recited “the low carbon low alloy Q&P steel”. It is unclear if the claim is limited to the galvanized steel or if the claim is open to the ungalvanized steel as well and if the limitations apply to that steel or not.
In lines 1-2 of claim 7, it is recited “The low carbon low alloy Q&P steel or low carbon low alloy hot-dip galvanized Q&P steel” whereas in lines 2-3 of claim 6 it is recited “the low carbon low alloy Q&P steel”. It is unclear if the claim is limited to the galvanized steel or if the claim is open to the ungalvanized steel as well and if the limitations apply to that steel or not.
In lines 1-2 of claim 8, it is recited “The low carbon low alloy Q&P steel or low carbon low alloy hot-dip galvanized Q&P steel” whereas in lines 3 and 5 of claim 8 it is recited “the hot-galvanized Q&P steel”. It is unclear if the claim is limited to the galvanized steel or if the claim is open to the ungalvanized steel as well and if the limitations apply to that steel or not.
Claims 8 and 16-19 recite “the metallographic structure”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
In lines 1-2 of claim 9, it is recited “The low carbon low alloy Q&P steel or low carbon low alloy hot-dip galvanized Q&P steel” whereas in lines 3 of claim 9 it is recited “the low carbon low alloy hot-galvanized Q&P steel”. It is unclear if the claim is limited to the galvanized steel or if the claim is open to the ungalvanized steel as well and if the limitations apply to that steel or not.
In lines 1-2 of claim 10, it is recited “The low carbon low alloy Q&P steel or low carbon low alloy hot-dip galvanized Q&P steel” whereas in lines 3 of claim 10 it is recited “the low carbon low alloy hot-galvanized Q&P steel”. It is unclear if the claim is limited to the galvanized steel or if the claim is open to the ungalvanized steel as well and if the limitations apply to that steel or not.
In lines 1-2 of claim 16, it is recited “The low carbon low alloy Q&P steel or low carbon low alloy hot-dip galvanized Q&P steel” whereas in lines 3, 5, and 7 of claim 16 it is recited “the low carbon low alloy Q&P steel”. It is unclear if the claim is limited to the ungalvanized steel or if the claim is open to the galvanized steel as well and if the limitations apply to that steel or not.
In lines 1-2 of claim 17, it is recited “The low carbon low alloy Q&P steel or low carbon low alloy hot-dip galvanized Q&P steel” whereas in lines 3, 4, 6 and 8 of claim 17 it is recited “the low carbon low alloy Q&P steel”. It is unclear if the claim is limited to the ungalvanized steel or if the claim is open to the galvanized steel as well and if the limitations apply to that steel or not.
In lines 1-2 of claim 18, it is recited “The low carbon low alloy Q&P steel or low carbon low alloy hot-dip galvanized Q&P steel” whereas in lines 3 and 6 of claim 18 it is recited “the hot-galvanized Q&P steel”. It is unclear if the claim is limited to the galvanized steel or if the claim is open to the ungalvanized steel as well and if the limitations apply to that steel or not.
In lines 1-2 of claim 19, it is recited “The low carbon low alloy Q&P steel or low carbon low alloy hot-dip galvanized Q&P steel” whereas in lines 3, 5 and 8 of claim 19 it is recited “the hot-galvanized Q&P steel”. It is unclear if the claim is limited to the galvanized steel or if the claim is open to the ungalvanized steel as well and if the limitations apply to that steel or not.
In lines 1-2 of claim 20, it is recited “The low carbon low alloy Q&P steel or low carbon low alloy hot-dip galvanized Q&P steel” whereas in line 3 of claim 20 it is recited “the low carbon low alloy hot-galvanized Q&P steel”, “the hot-galvanized Q&P steel” in lines 4 and 6 of claim 20. It is unclear if the claim is limited to the galvanized steel or if the claim is open to the ungalvanized steel as well and if the limitations apply to that steel or not. Additionally, claim 20 indicates two tensile strengths, one being ≥1180 and the other ≥1280 and it is unclear what the lower limit tensile strength would be.
In regard to claims 5, 8 and 15-20, these claims refer to both yield strengths and tensile strengths and then refer to “a product of strength and elongation”. It is unclear whether the product is that of tensile strength and elongation, yield strength and elongation or perhaps (tensile strength plus yield strength) and elongation.
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 18-19 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.
Claims 18-19 recite the limitation “15~30% by volume of ferrite”. Claim 1 upon which claims 18-19 indirectly depend recites “3~10% ferrite” and therefore claims 18-19 fail to further limit claim 1.
Claims 18-19 recite the limitation “45~75% by volume martensite”. Claim 1 upon which claims 18-19 indirectly depend recites “75~90% of martensite” and therefore claims 18-19 fail to 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-10, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. (US 2020/0157647) alone, or alternatively in view of Spowers (US 2,082,225).
In regard to claim 1, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses quenched (2000°C/s) and partitioned (Q&P) steel alloys having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below ([0032], [0028] and [0044])
Element
Instant Claim
(mass percent)
Ono et al. (‘647)
(mass percent)
Overlap
C
0.16 – 0.23
0.06 – 0.25
0.16 – 0.23
Si
1.1 – 2.0
0.6 – 2.5
1.1 – 2
Mn
1.6 – 3.0
2.3 – 3.5
2.3 – 3
P
0 – 0.015
0 – 0.02
0 – 0.015
S
0 – 0.005
0 – 0.01
0 – 0.005
Al
0.02 – 0.05
0 – 0.5
0.02 – 0.05
Fe
Balance
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of carbon, silicon, manganese, phosphorus, sulfur and aluminum disclosed by Ono et al. (‘647) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of carbon, silicon, manganese, phosphorus, sulfur and aluminum from the amounts disclosed by Ono et al. (‘647) because Ono et al. (‘647) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
With respect to the recitation “having a tensile strength of ≥1180MPa” in claim 1, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses tensile strengths of 780 to 1450 MPa [0136].
With respect to the recitation “wherein the metallographic structure of the low carbon low alloy Q&P steel is a multiphase structure of 75~90% of martensite, 10~25% of residual austenite and 3~10% of ferrite” in claim 1, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses wherein the ferrite would be present in an amount of 6 to 80% [0103-0104]; retained austenite would be present in an amount of 7 to 20% [0107-0108]; and 20 to 94% would be composed of structures such as martensite with the martensite having a diameter of 1.5 to 15 micrometers [0032]. Ono et al. (‘647) also discloses a low temperature heat treatment at 100 to 300°C for 30 seconds to 10 days to temper the martensite formed in the final cooling [0165]. Since Ono et al. (‘647) discloses substantially similar compositions, substantially similar microstructures, and substantially similar properties, uniformly distributed ferritic phase around the martensite reinforced phase grains would be expected.
With respect to the recitation “optionally one or two Cr, Mo, Ti, Nb, V and Cr+Mo+Ti+Nb+V ≤ 0.5%” in claim 1, Ono et al. (‘647) teaches 0.002 to 0.1 mass percent titanium [0069-0070]; 0.01 to 1 mass percent chromium [0077-0078]; 0.01 to 0.5 mass percent molybdenum [0079-0080]; 0.003 to 0.5 mass percent vanadium [0081-0082]; and 0.002 to 0.1 mass percent niobium [0083-0084]. The total of these elements would range from 0.027 to 2.2 mass percent which would overlap the range of the instant invention. MPEP 2144.05 I.
Still regarding claim 1, it is the Examiner’s position that Ono et al. (‘647) reads on the claim for the reasons as set forth above. However, when it is desired to hot galvanize the steel, Ono et al. (‘647) is silent to hot galvanizing the steel.
Spowers (‘225) discloses hot dip zinc galvanizing iron based materials in order provide a high luster over portions of the surface and provide superior physical properties such as adherence and ductility (page 1, left column, lines 6-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to apply hot dip galvanizing, as disclosed by Spowers (‘225) to the iron base or steel material, as disclosed by Ono et al. (‘647), in order to provide a high luster over portions of the surface and provide superior physical properties such as adherence and ductility, as disclosed by Spoowers (‘225) (page 1, left column, lines 6-38).
In regard to claim 2, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses quenched (2000°C/s) and partitioned (Q&P) steel alloys having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below ([0032], [0028] and [0044])
Element
Instant Claim
(mass percent)
Ono et al. (‘647)
(mass percent)
Overlap
C
0.17 – 0.23
0.06 – 0.25
0.17 – 0.23
Si
1.1 – 1.7
0.6 – 2.5
1.1 – 1.7
Mn
2.4 – 3.0
2.3 – 3.5
2.4 – 3
P
0 – 0.015
0 – 0.02
0 – 0.015
S
0 – 0.005
0 – 0.01
0 – 0.005
Al
0.02 – 0.05
0 – 0.5
0.02 – 0.05
Cr
0 – 0.35
0.01 – 1
0.01 – 0.35
Mo
0 – 0.25
0.01 – 0.5
0.01 – 0.25
Nb
0 – 0.06
0.002 – 0.1
0.002 – 0.06
Ti
0 – 0.065
0.002 – 0.1
0.002 – 0.065
V
0 – 0.055
0.003 – 0.5
0.003 – 0.055
Fe
Balance
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of carbon, silicon, manganese, phosphorus, sulfur, aluminum, chromium, molybdenum, niobium, titanium and vanadium disclosed by Ono et al. (‘647) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of carbon, silicon, manganese, phosphorus, sulfur, aluminum, chromium, molybdenum, niobium, titanium and vanadium from the amounts disclosed by Ono et al. (‘647) because Ono et al. (‘647) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
With respect to the recitation “having a tensile strength of ≥1180MPa” in claim 2, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses tensile strengths of 780 to 1450 MPa [0136].
Still regarding claim 2, it is the Examiner’s position that Ono et al. (‘647) reads on the claim for the reasons as set forth above. However, when it is desired to hot galvanize the steel, Ono et al. (‘647) is silent to hot galvanizing the steel.
Spowers (‘225) discloses hot dip zinc galvanizing iron based materials in order provide a high luster over portions of the surface and provide superior physical properties such as adherence and ductility (page 1, left column, lines 6-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to apply hot dip galvanizing, as disclosed by Spowers (‘225) to the iron base or steel material, as disclosed by Ono et al. (‘647), in order to provide a high luster over portions of the surface and provide superior physical properties such as adherence and ductility, as disclosed by Spoowers (‘225) (page 1, left column, lines 6-38).
In regard to claim 5, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses tensile strengths of 780 to 1450 MPa [0136]. Ono et al. (‘647) additionally discloses substantially similar compositions and microstructures. Therefore, the claimed properties would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 6, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses quenched (2000°C/s) and partitioned (Q&P) steel alloys having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below ([0032], [0028] and [0044])
Element
Instant Claim
(mass percent)
Ono et al. (‘647)
(mass percent)
Overlap
C
0.17 – 0.23
0.06 – 0.25
0.17 – 0.23
Si
1.1 – 1.7
0.6 – 2.5
1.1 – 1.7
Mn
1.6 – 2.2
2.3 – 3.5
-
P
0 – 0.015
0 – 0.02
0 – 0.015
S
0 – 0.005
0 – 0.01
0 – 0.005
Al
0.02 – 0.05
0 – 0.5
0.02 – 0.05
Fe
Balance
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of carbon, silicon, phosphorus, sulfur, and aluminum disclosed by Ono et al. (‘647) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of carbon, silicon, phosphorus, sulfur, and aluminum from the amounts disclosed by Ono et al. (‘647) because Ono et al. (‘647) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
With respect to the claimed range of manganese, 2.3 weight percent manganese as disclosed by Ono et al. (‘647) would be close enough to 2.2 mass percent manganese as claimed to establish prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I.
With respect to the recitation “optionally one or two Cr, Mo, Ti, Nb, V and Cr+Mo+Ti+Nb+V ≤ 0.5%” in claim 6, Ono et al. (‘647) teaches 0.002 to 0.1 mass percent titanium [0069-0070]; 0.01 to 1 mass percent chromium [0077-0078]; 0.01 to 0.5 mass percent molybdenum [0079-0080]; 0.003 to 0.5 mass percent vanadium [0081-0082]; and 0.002 to 0.1 mass percent niobium [0083-0084]. The total of these elements would range from 0.027 to 2.2 mass percent which would overlap the range of the instant invention. MPEP 2144.05 I.
With respect to the recitation “having a tensile strength of ≥1180MPa” in claim 6, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses tensile strengths of 780 to 1450 MPa [0136].
Still regarding claim 6, it is the Examiner’s position that Ono et al. (‘647) reads on the claim for the reasons as set forth above. However, when it is desired to hot galvanize the steel, Ono et al. (‘647) is silent to hot galvanizing the steel.
Spowers (‘225) discloses hot dip zinc galvanizing iron based materials in order provide a high luster over portions of the surface and provide superior physical properties such as adherence and ductility (page 1, left column, lines 6-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to apply hot dip galvanizing, as disclosed by Spowers (‘225) to the iron base or steel material, as disclosed by Ono et al. (‘647), in order to provide a high luster over portions of the surface and provide superior physical properties such as adherence and ductility, as disclosed by Spoowers (‘225) (page 1, left column, lines 6-38).
In regard to claim 7, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses quenched (2000°C/s) and partitioned (Q&P) steel alloys having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below ([0032], [0028], [0044] and [0069-0070])
Element
Instant Claim
(mass percent)
Ono et al. (‘647)
(mass percent)
Overlap
C
0.16 – 0.23
0.06 – 0.25
0.16 – 0.23
Si
1.4 – 2.0
0.6 – 2.5
1.4 – 2.0
Mn
2.4 – 3.0
2.3 – 3.5
2.4 – 3.0
Ti
0.006 – 0.016
0.002 – 0.1
0.006 – 0.016
P
0 – 0.015
0 – 0.02
0 – 0.015
S
0 – 0.002
0 – 0.01
0 – 0.002
Al
0.02 – 0.05
0 – 0.5
0.02 – 0.05
Fe
Balance
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of carbon, silicon, phosphorus, sulfur, titanium and aluminum disclosed by Ono et al. (‘647) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of carbon, silicon, phosphorus, sulfur, titanium and aluminum from the amounts disclosed by Ono et al. (‘647) because Ono et al. (‘647) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
With respect to the recitation “optionally one or two Cr, Mo, Nb, V and Cr+Mo+Nb+V ≤ 0.5%” in claim 7, Ono et al. (‘647) teaches 0.01 to 1 mass percent chromium [0077-0078]; 0.01 to 0.5 mass percent molybdenum [0079-0080]; 0.003 to 0.5 mass percent vanadium [0081-0082]; and 0.002 to 0.1 mass percent niobium [0083-0084]. The total of these elements would range from 0.025 to 2.1 mass percent which would overlap the range of the instant invention. MPEP 2144.05 I.
With respect to the recitation “having a tensile strength of ≥1180MPa” in claim 7, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses tensile strengths of 780 to 1450 MPa [0136].
Still regarding claim 7, it is the Examiner’s position that Ono et al. (‘647) reads on the claim for the reasons as set forth above. However, when it is desired to hot galvanize the steel, Ono et al. (‘647) is silent to hot galvanizing the steel.
Spowers (‘225) discloses hot dip zinc galvanizing iron based materials in order provide a high luster over portions of the surface and provide superior physical properties such as adherence and ductility (page 1, left column, lines 6-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to apply hot dip galvanizing, as disclosed by Spowers (‘225) to the iron base or steel material, as disclosed by Ono et al. (‘647), in order to provide a high luster over portions of the surface and provide superior physical properties such as adherence and ductility, as disclosed by Spoowers (‘225) (page 1, left column, lines 6-38).
In regard to claim 8, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses tensile strengths of 780 to 1450 MPa [0136]. Ono et al. (‘647) additionally discloses substantially similar compositions and microstructures. Therefore, the claimed properties would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 9, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses quenched (2000°C/s) and partitioned (Q&P) steel alloys having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below ([0032], [0028], [0044] and [0069-0070])
Element
Instant Claim
(mass percent)
Ono et al. (‘647)
(mass percent)
Overlap
C
0.17 – 0.23
0.06 – 0.25
0.17 – 0.23
Si
1.1 – 1.7
0.6 – 2.5
1.1 – 1.7
Mn
1.6 – 2.2
2.3 – 3.5
-
P
0 – 0.015
0 – 0.02
0 – 0.015
S
0 – 0.005
0 – 0.01
0 – 0.005
Al
0.02 – 0.05
0 – 0.5
0.02 – 0.05
Fe
Balance
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of carbon, silicon, phosphorus, sulfur and aluminum disclosed by Ono et al. (‘647) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of carbon, silicon, phosphorus, sulfur and aluminum from the amounts disclosed by Ono et al. (‘647) because Ono et al. (‘647) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
With respect to the recitation “optionally one or two Cr, Mo, Ti, Nb, V and Cr+Mo+Ti+Nb+V ≤ 0.5%” in claim 9, Ono et al. (‘647) teaches 0.01 to 1 mass percent chromium [0077-0078]; 0.01 to 0.5 mass percent molybdenum [0079-0080]; 0.002 to 0.1 mass percent titanium [0069-0070]; 0.003 to 0.5 mass percent vanadium [0081-0082]; and 0.002 to 0.1 mass percent niobium [0083-0084]. The total of these elements would range from 0.025 to 2.1 mass percent which would overlap the range of the instant invention. MPEP 2144.05 I.
With respect to the recitation “having a tensile strength of ≥1180MPa” in claim 9, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses tensile strengths of 780 to 1450 MPa [0136].
Still regarding claim 9, it is the Examiner’s position that Ono et al. (‘647) reads on the claim for the reasons as set forth above. However, when it is desired to hot galvanize the steel, Ono et al. (‘647) is silent to hot galvanizing the steel.
Spowers (‘225) discloses hot dip zinc galvanizing iron based materials in order provide a high luster over portions of the surface and provide superior physical properties such as adherence and ductility (page 1, left column, lines 6-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to apply hot dip galvanizing, as disclosed by Spowers (‘225) to the iron base or steel material, as disclosed by Ono et al. (‘647), in order to provide a high luster over portions of the surface and provide superior physical properties such as adherence and ductility, as disclosed by Spoowers (‘225) (page 1, left column, lines 6-38).
In regard to claim 10, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses quenched (2000°C/s) and partitioned (Q&P) steel alloys having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below ([0032], [0028], [0044] and [0069-0070])
Element
Instant Claim
(mass percent)
Ono et al. (‘647)
(mass percent)
Overlap
C
0.16 – 0.23
0.06 – 0.25
0.16 – 0.23
Si
1.4 – 2.0
0.6 – 2.5
1.4 – 2.0
Mn
2.4 – 3.0
2.3 – 3.5
2.4 – 3.0
Ti
0.006 – 0.016
0.002 – 0.1
0.006 – 0.016
P
0 – 0.015
0 – 0.02
0 – 0.015
S
0 – 0.002
0 – 0.01
0 – 0.002
Al
0.02 – 0.05
0 – 0.5
0.02 – 0.05
Fe
Balance
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of carbon, silicon, phosphorus, sulfur, titanium and aluminum disclosed by Ono et al. (‘647) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of carbon, silicon, phosphorus, sulfur, titanium and aluminum from the amounts disclosed by Ono et al. (‘647) because Ono et al. (‘647) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
With respect to the recitation “optionally one or two Cr, Mo, Nb, V and Cr+Mo+Ti+Nb+V ≤ 0.5%” in claim 10, Ono et al. (‘647) teaches 0.01 to 1 mass percent chromium [0077-0078]; 0.01 to 0.5 mass percent molybdenum [0079-0080]; 0.002 to 0.1 mass percent titanium [0069-0070]; 0.003 to 0.5 mass percent vanadium [0081-0082]; and 0.002 to 0.1 mass percent niobium [0083-0084]. The total of these elements would range from 0.027 to 2.2 mass percent which would overlap the range of the instant invention. MPEP 2144.05 I.
With respect to the recitation “having a tensile strength of ≥1180MPa” in claim 10, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses tensile strengths of 780 to 1450 MPa [0136].
Still regarding claim 10, it is the Examiner’s position that Ono et al. (‘647) reads on the claim for the reasons as set forth above. However, when it is desired to hot galvanize the steel, Ono et al. (‘647) is silent to hot galvanizing the steel.
Spowers (‘225) discloses hot dip zinc galvanizing iron based materials in order provide a high luster over portions of the surface and provide superior physical properties such as adherence and ductility (page 1, left column, lines 6-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to apply hot dip galvanizing, as disclosed by Spowers (‘225) to the iron base or steel material, as disclosed by Ono et al. (‘647), in order to provide a high luster over portions of the surface and provide superior physical properties such as adherence and ductility, as disclosed by Spoowers (‘225) (page 1, left column, lines 6-38).
In regard to claim 15, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses tensile strengths of 780 to 1450 MPa, which overlaps the range of the instant invention [0136].
Ono et al. (‘647) reads on the claim for the reasons as set forth above. However, when it is desired to hot galvanize the steel, Ono et al. (‘647) is silent to hot galvanizing the steel.
Spowers (‘225) discloses hot dip zinc galvanizing iron based materials in order provide a high luster over portions of the surface and provide superior physical properties such as adherence and ductility (page 1, left column, lines 6-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to apply hot dip galvanizing, as disclosed by Spowers (‘225) to the iron base or steel material, as disclosed by Ono et al. (‘647), in order to provide a high luster over portions of the surface and provide superior physical properties such as adherence and ductility, as disclosed by Spoowers (‘225) (page 1, left column, lines 6-38).
With respect to the other steps, Ono et al. (‘647) teaches hot rolling, annealing, cold rolling and quenching [0141-0150]. However, the claims are drawn to a product and not a process. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product 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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113.
In regard to claim 16, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses quenched (2000°C/s) and partitioned (Q&P) steel alloys with 0.06 to 0.25 mass percent carbon ([0032], [0028] and [0044]).
With respect to the recitation “having a tensile strength of ≥1180MPa” in claim 16, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses tensile strengths of 780 to 1450 MPa [0136].
With respect to the recitation “wherein the metallographic structure of the low carbon low alloy Q&P steel is a multiphase structure of 75~85% of martensite, 10~25% of residual austenite and 3~10% of ferrite” in claim 16, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses wherein the ferrite would be present in an amount of 6 to 80% [0103-0104]; retained austenite would be present in an amount of 7 to 20% [0107-0108]; and 20 to 94% would be composed of structures such as martensite with the martensite having a diameter of 1.5 to 15 micrometers [0032]. Ono et al. (‘647) also discloses a low temperature heat treatment at 100 to 300°C for 30 seconds to 10 days to temper the martensite formed in the final cooling [0165]. Since Ono et al. (‘647) discloses substantially similar compositions, substantially similar microstructures, and substantially similar properties, uniformly distributed ferritic phase around the martensite reinforced phase grains would be expected.
With respect to the claimed tensile strength, elongation and product of strength and elongation, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses alloys having substantially similar compositions and substantially similar microstructures. Therefore, the claimed properties would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
Ono et al. (‘647) reads on the claim for the reasons as set forth above. However, when it is desired to hot galvanize the steel, Ono et al. (‘647) is silent to hot galvanizing the steel.
Spowers (‘225) discloses hot dip zinc galvanizing iron based materials in order provide a high luster over portions of the surface and provide superior physical properties such as adherence and ductility (page 1, left column, lines 6-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to apply hot dip galvanizing, as disclosed by Spowers (‘225) to the iron base or steel material, as disclosed by Ono et al. (‘647), in order to provide a high luster over portions of the surface and provide superior physical properties such as adherence and ductility, as disclosed by Spoowers (‘225) (page 1, left column, lines 6-38).
In regard to claim 17, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses quenched (2000°C/s) and partitioned (Q&P) steel alloys with 0.06 to 0.25 mass percent carbon ([0032], [0028] and [0044]).
With respect to the recitation “having a tensile strength of ≥1280MPa” in claim 17, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses tensile strengths of 780 to 1450 MPa [0136].
With respect to the recitation “wherein the metallographic structure of the low carbon low alloy Q&P steel is a multiphase structure of 80~90% of martensite, 10~20% of residual austenite and 3~5% of ferrite” in claim 17, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses wherein the ferrite would be present in an amount of 6 to 80%, which would be close enough to 5% to establish prima facie obviousness [0103-0104]; retained austenite would be present in an amount of 7 to 20% [0107-0108]; and 20 to 94% would be composed of structures such as martensite with the martensite having a diameter of 1.5 to 15 micrometers [0032]. Ono et al. (‘647) also discloses a low temperature heat treatment at 100 to 300°C for 30 seconds to 10 days to temper the martensite formed in the final cooling [0165]. Since Ono et al. (‘647) discloses substantially similar compositions, substantially similar microstructures, and substantially similar properties, uniformly distributed ferritic phase around the martensite reinforced phase grains would be expected.
With respect to the claimed tensile strength, elongation and product of strength and elongation, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses alloys having substantially similar compositions and substantially similar microstructures. Therefore, the claimed properties would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
Ono et al. (‘647) reads on the claim for the reasons as set forth above. However, when it is desired to hot galvanize the steel, Ono et al. (‘647) is silent to hot galvanizing the steel.
Spowers (‘225) discloses hot dip zinc galvanizing iron based materials in order provide a high luster over portions of the surface and provide superior physical properties such as adherence and ductility (page 1, left column, lines 6-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to apply hot dip galvanizing, as disclosed by Spowers (‘225) to the iron base or steel material, as disclosed by Ono et al. (‘647), in order to provide a high luster over portions of the surface and provide superior physical properties such as adherence and ductility, as disclosed by Spoowers (‘225) (page 1, left column, lines 6-38).
In regard to claim 18, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses quenched (2000°C/s) and partitioned (Q&P) steel alloys with 0.06 to 0.25 mass percent carbon ([0032], [0028] and [0044]).
With respect to the recitation “having a tensile strength of ≥1180MPa” in claim 18, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses tensile strengths of 780 to 1450 MPa [0136].
With respect to the recitation “wherein the metallographic structure of the low carbon low alloy Q&P steel is a multiphase structure of 45~75% of martensite, 15~30% of ferrite and 10~25% of residual austenite” in claim 18, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses wherein the ferrite would be present in an amount of 6 to 80% [0103-0104]; retained austenite would be present in an amount of 7 to 20% [0107-0108]; and 20 to 94% would be composed of structures such as martensite with the martensite having a diameter of 1.5 to 15 micrometers [0032]. Ono et al. (‘647) also discloses a low temperature heat treatment at 100 to 300°C for 30 seconds to 10 days to temper the martensite formed in the final cooling [0165]. Since Ono et al. (‘647) discloses substantially similar compositions, substantially similar microstructures, and substantially similar properties, uniformly distributed ferritic phase around the martensite reinforced phase grains would be expected.
With respect to the claimed yield strength, tensile strengths and elongation and product of strength and elongation, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses alloys having substantially similar compositions and substantially similar microstructures. Therefore, the claimed properties would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
Ono et al. (‘647) reads on the claim for the reasons as set forth above. However, when it is desired to hot galvanize the steel, Ono et al. (‘647) is silent to hot galvanizing the steel.
Spowers (‘225) discloses hot dip zinc galvanizing iron based materials in order provide a high luster over portions of the surface and provide superior physical properties such as adherence and ductility (page 1, left column, lines 6-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to apply hot dip galvanizing, as disclosed by Spowers (‘225) to the iron base or steel material, as disclosed by Ono et al. (‘647), in order to provide a high luster over portions of the surface and provide superior physical properties such as adherence and ductility, as disclosed by Spoowers (‘225) (page 1, left column, lines 6-38).
In regard to claim 19, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses quenched (2000°C/s) and partitioned (Q&P) steel alloys with 0.06 to 0.25 mass percent carbon ([0032], [0028] and [0044]).
With respect to the recitation “having a tensile strength of ≥1180MPa” in claim 19, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses tensile strengths of 780 to 1450 MPa [0136].
With respect to the recitation “wherein the metallographic structure of the low carbon low alloy Q&P steel is a multiphase structure of 45~75% of martensite, 15~30% of ferrite and 10~25% of residual austenite” in claim 19, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses wherein the ferrite would be present in an amount of 6 to 80% [0103-0104]; retained austenite would be present in an amount of 7 to 20% [0107-0108]; and 20 to 94% would be composed of structures such as martensite with the martensite having a diameter of 1.5 to 15 micrometers [0032]. Ono et al. (‘647) also discloses a low temperature heat treatment at 100 to 300°C for 30 seconds to 10 days to temper the martensite formed in the final cooling [0165]. Since Ono et al. (‘647) discloses substantially similar compositions, substantially similar microstructures, and substantially similar properties, uniformly distributed ferritic phase around the martensite reinforced phase grains would be expected.
With respect to the claimed yield strength, tensile strengths and elongation and product of strength and elongation, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses alloys having substantially similar compositions and substantially similar microstructures. Therefore, the claimed properties would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
Ono et al. (‘647) reads on the claim for the reasons as set forth above. However, when it is desired to hot galvanize the steel, Ono et al. (‘647) is silent to hot galvanizing the steel.
Spowers (‘225) discloses hot dip zinc galvanizing iron based materials in order provide a high luster over portions of the surface and provide superior physical properties such as adherence and ductility (page 1, left column, lines 6-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to apply hot dip galvanizing, as disclosed by Spowers (‘225) to the iron base or steel material, as disclosed by Ono et al. (‘647), in order to provide a high luster over portions of the surface and provide superior physical properties such as adherence and ductility, as disclosed by Spoowers (‘225) (page 1, left column, lines 6-38).
In regard to claim 20, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses quenched (2000°C/s) and partitioned (Q&P) steel alloys with 0.06 to 0.25 mass percent carbon ([0032], [0028] and [0044]).
With respect to the recitation “having a tensile strength of ≥1180 MPa” in claim 20, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses tensile strengths of 780 to 1450 MPa [0136].
With respect to the recitation “the low carbon low alloy hot-galvanized Q&P steel has a tensile strength of ≥1280MPa” in claim 20, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses tensile strengths of 780 to 1450 MPa [0136].
With respect to the claimed yield strength, tensile strengths and elongation and product of strength and elongation, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses alloys having substantially similar compositions and substantially similar microstructures. Therefore, the claimed properties would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
Ono et al. (‘647) reads on the claim for the reasons as set forth above. However, when it is desired to hot galvanize the steel, Ono et al. (‘647) is silent to hot galvanizing the steel.
Spowers (‘225) discloses hot dip zinc galvanizing iron based materials in order provide a high luster over portions of the surface and provide superior physical properties such as adherence and ductility (page 1, left column, lines 6-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to apply hot dip galvanizing, as disclosed by Spowers (‘225) to the iron base or steel material, as disclosed by Ono et al. (‘647), in order to provide a high luster over portions of the surface and provide superior physical properties such as adherence and ductility, as disclosed by Spoowers (‘225) (page 1, left column, lines 6-38).
Conclusion
At this time all pertinent art has been cited by Applicant or the Examiner in this Office Action or the previous Office Action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 4 pm.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759