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 the Claims
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 11-14 and 16-26 are pending wherein claims 1-2, 5-7, 11-14 and 16-20 are amended, claims 21-26 are new, claims 3-4, 8-10 and 15 are canceled and claims 11-14 are withdrawn from consideration. Newly submitted claims 23-26 are directed to a manufacturing process of low carbon low alloy Q&P steel or low carbon alloy hot galvanized Q&P steel which was withdrawn from consideration in the Office Action of March 18, 2026. Since Applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 23-26 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP 821.03. Claims 1-2, 5-7 and 16-22 are under examination.
Status of Previous Rejections
The previous rejection of claims 1, 5-7 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment to claims 1-2, 5-7 and 15-20. The previous rejection of claims 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which is depends is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment to claims 18-19.
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.
Claim 2 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.
With respect to the recitation “Si content is in a range selected from a group consisting of 1.1~1.7%; the Mn content is in a range selected from a group consisting of 1.6~2.2%” in claim 2, it is unclear if the ranges for these elements are as specified or some narrower range within them. 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). 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.
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, 5, 7, 17-18 and 20-22 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 “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.
With respect to the recitation “the Q&P steel has a yield strength of ≥660MPa, a tensile strength of ≥1180MPa, an elongation of ≥18%, a product of strength an elongation of ≥24GPa%” in claim 1, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses tensile strengths of 780 to 1450 MPa and elongations 9% or more [0138]. Since Ono et al. (‘647) discloses substantially similar composition, microstructures and tensile strength/elongation properties, the claimed yield strengths and strength/elongation products would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 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).
With respect to the recitation “wherein the Q&P steel has an austenite conversion rate of less than 8% at -50°C and an austenite conversion rate of less than 30% at -190°C; wherein the hot-galvanized Q&P steel has an austenite conversion rate of less than 8% at -50°C and an austenite conversion rate of less than 30% at -190°C” in claim 5, Ono et al. (‘647) alone, or alternatively in view of Spowers (‘225) discloses substantially similar compositions and microstructures. Therefore, the claim property would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
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.
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 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 “the yield strength is 668-1002 MPa, the tensile strength is 1181-1296 Pa, the elongation is 18.9-24.2%, the product of strength and elongation is 24.1-28.6 GPa%” in claim 17, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses tensile strengths of 780 to 1450 MPa and elongations 9% or more [0138]. Since Ono et al. (‘647) discloses substantially similar composition, microstructures and tensile strength/elongation properties, the claimed yield strengths and strength/elongation products would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
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.
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 “a yield strength of 721-956 MPa, a tensile strength is 1184-1352 Pa, the elongation is 19-22.5%, the product of strength and elongation is 23.6-28.9 GPa%” in claim 18, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses tensile strengths of 780 to 1450 MPa and elongations 9% or more [0138]. Since Ono et al. (‘647) discloses substantially similar composition, microstructures and tensile strength/elongation properties, the claimed yield strengths and strength/elongation products 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 “a yield strength of 802-956 MPa, a tensile strength is 1280-1352 Pa, the elongation is 19-22.5%, the product of strength and elongation is 25.2-28.9 GPa%” in claim 20, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses tensile strengths of 780 to 1450 MPa and elongations 9% or more [0138]. Since Ono et al. (‘647) discloses substantially similar composition, microstructures and tensile strength/elongation properties, the claimed yield strengths and strength/elongation products 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).
With respect to the recitation “a yield strength of 668-1112 MPa, a tensile strength is 1181-1350 Pa, the elongation is 18.9-24.2%, the product of strength and elongation is 24.1-28.97 GPa%” in claim 21, Ono et al. (‘647) discloses tensile strengths of 780 to 1450 MPa and elongations 9% or more [0138]. Since Ono et al. (‘647) discloses substantially similar composition, microstructures and tensile strength/elongation properties, the claimed yield strengths and strength/elongation products would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 22, 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 [0069-0084]).
Element
Instant Claim
(mass percent)
Ono et al. (‘647)
(mass percent)
Overlap
C
0.18 – 0.21
0.06 – 0.25
0.18 – 0.21
Si
1.4 – 2.0
0.6 – 2.5
1.4 – 2
Mn
2.4 – 3.0
2.3 – 3.5
2.4 – 3
Cr
0 – 0.25
0.01 – 1
0.01 – 0.25
Nb
0 – 0.04
0.002 – 0.1
0.002 – 0.04
Ti
0 – 0.04
0.002 – 0.1
0.002 – 0.04
V
0 – 0.035
0.003 – 0.5
0.003 – 0.035
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claim 2, Ono et al. (‘647) teaches a minimum of 2.3 weight percent manganese as having less than 2.3 weight percent manganese would provided predetermined area ratios of tempered martensite and/or bainte to ensure strength, provide stabilization of retained austenite, improve ductility and suppress carbide formation in the bainite and therefore Ono et al. (‘647) teaches away from having less than 2.3 weight percent manganese.
Claims 6, 16 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claim 6, Ono et al. (‘647) teaches a minimum of 2.3 weight percent manganese as having less than 2.3 weight percent manganese would provided predetermined area ratios of tempered martensite and/or bainte to ensure strength, provide stabilization of retained austenite, improve ductility and suppress carbide formation in the bainite and therefore Ono et al. (‘647) teaches away from having less than 2.3 weight percent manganese.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the Applicant primarily argues that although the elongations of Ono et al. (‘647) may be in the range of 8 to 20%, there are no examples in Ono et al. (‘647) that show an elongation rate of 18% or more and thus a product of strength and elongation of 23.0 GPa% or more and the highest elongation rate of the Example steels is only 16% and its product of strength and elongation is only 19.3GPa%.
In response, the Examiner notes that just because the Examples of Ono et al. (‘647) do not provide a product of strength and elongation that is greater than or equal to 24 GPa% does not mean that the teachings of the broad disclosure would teach away from achieving such a product. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). MPEP 2123 II.
Second, the Applicant primarily argues that Ono et al. (‘647) teaches a method with annealing the cold rolled steel sheet on a continuous annealing line at an annealing temperature of 780 to 880°C without a specific heating process and for the cooling step, Ono et al. (‘647) teaches cooling to 780 to 470°C holding at a temperature in the range of 470 to 405°C for 14 to 200 seconds and then cooling from 405°C to a cooling stop temperature represented by a formula (A) and this is very different than the annealing and cooling of the instant invention.
In response, the Examiner notes that while arguments about the processing of a prior art relative to the processing of an instant invention are generally not persuasive in instances where there is substantial overlap in compositions and microstructures, the Examiner notes that the heating of the instant invention is in the range of 770 to 845°C and there is a slow cooling in the instant invention to 720 to 770 then later heating to range of 450 to 470°C at a rate of 10 to 30°C/s where the hold time is 10 to 60 seconds and there appears to be similar temperatures and hold times in these temperature ranges in Ono et al. (‘647) relative to that of the instant invention.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights