DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 05 August 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-17 and 20-22 remain pending in the application. Claims 10-15 and 20 have been withdrawn. Claims 5,18 and 19 have been canceled. New claims 21 and 22 have been added. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 11 May 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted between 27 October 2023 and 25 November 2025 were considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN104195443A (machine translation) of Li in view of WO2011158818A1 (machine translation) of Kawasaki.
Claim 1 claims a hot-stamped component having a tensile strength of ≥1000 MPa, wherein the hot-stamped component has a chemical composition comprising by weight percent: C: 0.05-0.20%, Si: 0.02-1.00%, Mn: 0.5-2.0%,P≤0.10%,S≤0.05%, Al: 0.01-0.30%, Nb: 0.01- 0.04%, Ti: 0.01-0.06%, Cr: 0.12-0.50%, B: 0.001-0.05%, and a balance of Fe and unavoidable impurities, wherein the following are satisfied at the same time: 0.24%≤C+(Mn/6)≤0.45%; 0.05%≤Nb+Ti+(Bx10)≤0.15%; the hot-stamped component has an average grain size of original austenite of ≤ 10 µm, a VDA cold bending angle of ≥ 80° and a room temperature impact toughness of ≥ 80 J/cm2; wherein martensite and bainite account for ≥ 75% by area in a microstructure of the hot- stamped component; and a remainder of the microstructure consists of ferrite, retained austenite or a mixture thereof.
Li discloses a high-flexural-behavior hot-formed steel used for automobiles and manufacturing method thereof in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Li teaches the following chemical composition of mass percentage: C: 0.18 to 0.30%, Si ≤ 0.30%, Mn: 1.00 to 1.60%, P ≤0.015%, S≤0.0020%,Cr:0.10～0.30%, Ti:0.02～0.06%, Al:0.020～0.060%, B:0.0005～0.0040%,[N]≤0.004%,[O]≤0.003%, Nb: 0.02 to 0.10%, Mo: 0.15 to 0.40%, V ≤ 0.10%, the balance is Fe and inevitable inclusions, Para[0014, 0015]. The ranges taught by Li overlap with the claimed ranges for every claimed element. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select within the ranges of C and Mn as taught by Li, such as C: 0.20% and Mn: 1.1%, and obtain a value for C+(Mn/6) of 0.38 which falls within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill would be able to select within the ranges of Nb, Ti, and B as taught by Li, such as Nb: 0.05%, Ti: 0.03%, B: 0.002%, and obtain a value for Nb+Ti+(Bx10) of 0.1 which falls within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
Li also teaches an average grain size of the austenite before hot forming of the hot formed steel of ≤10 μm, a cold bending angle of ≥75°, and a martensite ratio after thermoforming of ≥ 98%, Para[0016]. These ranges also overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. While Li doesn’t specifically teach a value for impact toughness, Li discloses a product that is substantially identical in composition and produced by a substantially identical process as the claimed invention. 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, see MPEP 2112.01. Impact toughness is a physical property which must be present.
Additionally, Kawasaki discloses a hot-stamp-molded article, process for production of steel sheet for hot stamping, and process for production of hot stamp-molded article in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kawasaki teaches an impact toughness of 85 J/cm2, Para[0050]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Kawasaki discloses that parts such as automobile parts, in particular frames, members and reinforcement, are designed to efficiently absorb energy at the time of a collision, from parts to parts, such as frames, members and reinforcements, and parts that have sufficient tolerance, transmit energy at the time of collision without deformation are categorized. Particularly with regard to reinforcement, since the required strength is increasing more and more, in the cold press molding, the ability of the press becomes insufficient or the shape freezing property deteriorates, Para[0003]. Kawasaki teaches that the present inventors have completed the present invention by manufacturing parts having sufficient toughness and tensile strength, Para[0006]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the steel taught by Li in view of Kawasaki to achieve sufficient toughness and tensile strength for automobile parts, resulting in the impact toughness taught by Kawasaki. Thus, Li in view of Kawasaki teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Claim 2 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the composition of the hot-stamped component further comprises one or more of Ni: 0.01-1.0%, Mo: 0.01-0.5%, and V: 0.01-0.5% by weight percent.
Li teaches overlapping ranges for Mo: 0.15 to 0.40%, and V: ≤ 0.10%, Para[0015]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Li covers the additional limitation of claim 2. Therefore, Li in view of Kawasaki covers all limitations of claim 2.
Claim 3 further limits claim 1 by claiming P≤0.05% and/or S≤0.01%.
Li teaches P ≤ 0.015%, S ≤ 0.0020%, Para[0014]. These ranges overlap with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Li covers the additional limitation of claim 3. Therefore, Li in view of Kawasaki covers all limitations of claim 3.
Claim 4 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the content of Si is 0.05-0.7%; and/or the content of Al is 0.01-0.25%; and/or the content of B is 0.001-0.005%.
Li teaches Si ≤ 0.30%, Al: 0.020～0.060%, and B: 0.0005～0.0040%, Para[0014]. These ranges overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Li covers the additional limitation of claim 4. Therefore, Li in view of Kawasaki covers all limitations of claim 4.
Claims 6-8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN104195443A (machine translation) of Li in view of WO2011158818 (machine translation) of Kawasaki, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, further in view of US2020224287A1 of Fan.
Claim 6 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the hot-stamped component has a yield strength of ≥ 800 MPa, a tensile strength of ≥ 1000 MPa and an elongation at break of ≥ 6%.
Li teaches a tensile strength of 1300-1800MPa and an elongation at break of ≥8% , Para[0056]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. While Li doesn’t specifically teach a value for yield strength, Li discloses a product that is substantially identical in composition and produced by a substantially identical process as the claimed invention. 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, see MPEP 2112.01. Yield strength is a physical property which must be present.
Additionally, Fan discloses a method for producing a high strength coated steel sheet having improved strength, formability and obtained sheet in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Fan teaches that to reduce the weight of the automotive in order to improve their fuel efficiency in view of the global environmental conservation it is desirable to have sheets having improved yield and tensile strength. But such sheets must also have a good ductility and a good formability and more specifically a good stretch flangeability. In this respect, it is desirable to have sheets having a yield strength YS of at least 800 MPa, a tensile strength TS of about 1180 MPa, a total elongation of at least 14%, Para[0005, 0006]. These values overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the steel sheet disclosed by Li in view of Kawasaki, obtaining the values for yield strength, tensile strength, and elongation disclosed by Fan in order to reduce the weight of the sheet. Thus, Li, Kawasaki, and Fan cover all limitations of claim 6.
Claim 7 further limits claim 6 by claiming that the hot-stamped component has a yield strength of ≥ 830 MPa, a tensile strength of ≥1020 MPa and an elongation at break of ≥ 7.0%.
Li teaches a tensile strength of 1300-1800MPa and an elongation at break of ≥8% , Para[0055]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. While Li doesn’t specifically teach a value for yield strength, Li discloses a product that is substantially identical in composition and produced by a substantially identical process as the claimed invention. 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, see MPEP 2112.01. Yield strength is a physical property which must be present.
Additionally, Fan discloses a method for producing a high strength coated steel sheet having improved strength, formability and obtained sheet in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Fan teaches that to reduce the weight of the automotive in order to improve their fuel efficiency in view of the global environmental conservation it is desirable to have sheets having improved yield and tensile strength. But such sheets must also have a good ductility and a good formability and more specifically a good stretch flangeability. In this respect, it is desirable to have sheets having a yield strength YS of at least 800 MPa, a tensile strength TS of about 1180 MPa, a total elongation of at least 14%, Para[0005, 0006]. These values overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the steel sheet disclosed by Li in view of Kawasaki, obtaining the values for yield strength, tensile strength, and elongation disclosed by Fan in order to reduce the weight of the sheet. Thus, Li, Kawasaki, and Fan cover all limitations of claim 7.
Claim 8 further limits claim 7 by claiming that the hot-stamped component has a yield strength of 830-1150 MPa, a tensile strength of 1020-1300 MPa and an elongation at break of 7.0-9.0%.
Li teaches a tensile strength of 1300-1800MPa and an elongation at break of ≥8% , Para[0056]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. While Li doesn’t specifically teach a value for yield strength, Li discloses a product that is substantially identical in composition and produced by a substantially identical process as the claimed invention. 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, see MPEP 2112.01. Yield strength is a physical property which must be present.
Additionally, Fan discloses a method for producing a high strength coated steel sheet having improved strength, formability and obtained sheet in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Fan teaches that to reduce the weight of the automotive in order to improve their fuel efficiency in view of the global environmental conservation it is desirable to have sheets having improved yield and tensile strength. But such sheets must also have a good ductility and a good formability and more specifically a good stretch flangeability. In this respect, it is desirable to have sheets having a yield strength YS of at least 800 MPa, a tensile strength TS of about 1180 MPa, a total elongation of at least 14%, Para[0005, 0006]. These values overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the steel sheet disclosed by Li in view of Kawasaki, obtaining the values for yield strength, tensile strength, and elongation disclosed by Fan in order to reduce the weight of the sheet. Thus, Li, Kawasaki, and Fan cover all limitations of claim 8.
Claim 16 further limits claim 2 by claiming that the hot-stamped component has a yield strength of ≥ 800 MPa, a tensile strength of ≥ 1000 MPa and an elongation at break of ≥ 6%.
Li teaches a tensile strength of 1300-1800MPa and an elongation at break of ≥8% , Para[0056]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. While Li doesn’t specifically teach a value for yield strength, Li discloses a product that is substantially identical in composition and produced by a substantially identical process as the claimed invention. 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, see MPEP 2112.01. Yield strength is a physical property which must be present.
Additionally, Fan discloses a method for producing a high strength coated steel sheet having improved strength, formability and obtained sheet in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Fan teaches that to reduce the weight of the automotive in order to improve their fuel efficiency in view of the global environmental conservation it is desirable to have sheets having improved yield and tensile strength. But such sheets must also have a good ductility and a good formability and more specifically a good stretch flangeability. In this respect, it is desirable to have sheets having a yield strength YS of at least 800 MPa, a tensile strength TS of about 1180 MPa, a total elongation of at least 14%, Para[0005, 0006]. These values overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the steel sheet disclosed by Li in view of Kawasaki, obtaining the values for yield strength, tensile strength, and elongation disclosed by Fan in order to reduce the weight of the sheet. Thus, Li, Kawasaki, and Fan cover all limitations of claim 16.
Claims 9, 17 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN104195443A (machine translation) of Li in view of WO2011158818A1 (machine translation) of Kawasaki, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, further in view of WO2018062380A1 (machine translation) of Ono.
Claim 9 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the VDA cold bending angle of the hot stamped component is ≥ 85° and/or the room temperature impact toughness of the hot stamped component is ≥ 85 J/cm2.
Li teaches a bending angle of ≥ 75°, Para[0056]. This overlaps with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. While Li doesn’t specifically teach a value for impact toughness, Li discloses a product that is substantially identical in composition and produced by a substantially identical process as the claimed invention. 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, see MPEP 2112.01. Impact toughness is a physical property which must be present.
Additionally, Kawasaki discloses a hot-stamp-molded article, process for production of steel sheet for hot stamping, and process for production of hot stamp-molded article in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kawasaki teaches an impact toughness of 85 J/cm2, Para[0050]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Kawasaki discloses that parts such as automobile parts, in particular frames, members and reinforcement, are designed to efficiently absorb energy at the time of a collision, from parts to parts, such as frames, members and reinforcements, and parts that have sufficient tolerance, transmit energy at the time of collision without deformation are categorized. Particularly with regard to reinforcement, since the required strength is increasing more and more, in the cold press molding, the ability of the press becomes insufficient or the shape freezing property deteriorates, Para[0003]. Kawasaki teaches that the present inventors have completed the present invention by manufacturing parts having sufficient toughness and tensile strength, Para[0006]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the steel taught by Li in view of Kawasaki to achieve sufficient toughness and tensile strength resulting in the impact toughness taught by Kawasaki.
Furthermore, Ono teaches a steel sheet and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Ono teaches a bending angle of 90°, Para[0142]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Ono discloses that the present invention relates to a steel sheet and a manufacturing method thereof. And more particularly to a steel sheet suitable for manufacturing parts such as automobiles and household appliances formed by cold pressing. In recent years, from a further increase in lightweighting needs to automobile bodies, Para[0003]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to produce the steel taught by Li in view of Kawasaki, obtaining the bending angle disclosed by Ono in order to reduce the weight of the steel and better serve automobile applications. Thus, Li, Kawasaki and Ono teach all limitations of claim 9.
Claim 17 further limits claim 2 by claiming that the VDA cold bending angle of the hot stamped component is ≥ 85° and/or the room temperature impact toughness of the hot stamped component is ≥ 85 J/cm2.
Li teaches a bending angle of ≥ 75°, Para[0056]. This overlaps with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. While Li doesn’t specifically teach a value for impact toughness, Li discloses a product that is substantially identical in composition and produced by a substantially identical process as the claimed invention. 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, see MPEP 2112.01. Impact toughness is a physical property which must be present.
Additionally, Kawasaki discloses a hot-stamp-molded article, process for production of steel sheet for hot stamping, and process for production of hot stamp-molded article in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kawasaki teaches an impact toughness of 85 J/cm2, Para[0050]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Kawasaki discloses that parts such as automobile parts, in particular frames, members and reinforcement, are designed to efficiently absorb energy at the time of a collision, from parts to parts, such as frames, members and reinforcements, and parts that have sufficient tolerance, transmit energy at the time of collision without deformation are categorized. Particularly with regard to reinforcement, since the required strength is increasing more and more, in the cold press molding, the ability of the press becomes insufficient or the shape freezing property deteriorates, Para[0003]. Kawasaki teaches that the present inventors have completed the present invention by manufacturing parts having sufficient toughness and tensile strength, Para[0006]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the steel taught by Li in view of Kawasaki to achieve sufficient toughness and tensile strength resulting in the impact toughness taught by Kawasaki.
Furthermore, Ono teaches a steel sheet and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Ono teaches a bending angle of 90°, Para[0139]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Ono discloses that the present invention relates to a steel sheet and a manufacturing method thereof. And more particularly to a steel sheet suitable for manufacturing parts such as automobiles and household appliances formed by cold pressing. In recent years, from a further increase in lightweighting needs to automobile bodies, Para[0003]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to produce the steel taught by Li in view of Kawasaki, obtaining the bending angle disclosed by Ono in order to reduce the weight of the steel and better serve automobile applications. Thus, Li, Kawasaki and Ono teach all limitations of claim 17.
Claim 21 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the VDA cold bending angle of the hot stamped component is ≥ 90°; and/or the room temperature impact toughness of the hot stamped component is ≥ 90J/cm2.
Li teaches a bending angle of ≥ 75°, Para[0056]. This overlaps with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. While Li doesn’t specifically teach a value for impact toughness, Li discloses a product that is substantially identical in composition and produced by a substantially identical process as the claimed invention. 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, see MPEP 2112.01. Impact toughness is a physical property which must be present.
Additionally, Kawasaki discloses a hot-stamp-molded article, process for production of steel sheet for hot stamping, and process for production of hot stamp-molded article in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kawasaki teaches an impact toughness of 85 J/cm2, Para[0050], and an impact toughness of 100 to 150 J/cm2, Para [0048]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Kawasaki discloses that parts such as automobile parts, in particular frames, members and reinforcement, are designed to efficiently absorb energy at the time of a collision, from parts to parts, such as frames, members and reinforcements, and parts that have sufficient tolerance, transmit energy at the time of collision without deformation are categorized. Particularly with regard to reinforcement, since the required strength is increasing more and more, in the cold press molding, the ability of the press becomes insufficient or the shape freezing property deteriorates, Para[0003]. Kawasaki teaches that the present inventors have completed the present invention by manufacturing parts having sufficient toughness and tensile strength, Para[0006]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the steel taught by Li in view of Kawasaki to achieve sufficient toughness and tensile strength resulting in the impact toughness taught by Kawasaki.
Furthermore, Ono teaches a steel sheet and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Ono teaches a bending angle of 90°, Para[0139]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Ono discloses that the present invention relates to a steel sheet and a manufacturing method thereof. And more particularly to a steel sheet suitable for manufacturing parts such as automobiles and household appliances formed by cold pressing. In recent years, from a further increase in lightweighting needs to automobile bodies, Para[0001]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to produce the steel taught by Li in view of Kawasaki, obtaining the bending angle disclosed by Ono in order to reduce the weight of the steel and better serve automobile applications. Thus, Li, Kawasaki and Ono teach all limitations of claim 21.
Claim 22 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the VDA cold bending angle of the hot stamped component is 85-120°; and/or the room temperature impact toughness of the hot stamped component is 80-115 J/cm2.
Li teaches a bending angle of ≥ 75°, Para[0056]. This overlaps with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. While Li doesn’t specifically teach a value for impact toughness, Li discloses a product that is substantially identical in composition and produced by a substantially identical process as the claimed invention. 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, see MPEP 2112.01. Impact toughness is a physical property which must be present.
Additionally, Kawasaki discloses a hot-stamp-molded article, process for production of steel sheet for hot stamping, and process for production of hot stamp-molded article in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kawasaki teaches an impact toughness of 85 J/cm2, Para[0050]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Kawasaki discloses that parts such as automobile parts, in particular frames, members and reinforcement, are designed to efficiently absorb energy at the time of a collision, from parts to parts, such as frames, members and reinforcements, and parts that have sufficient tolerance, transmit energy at the time of collision without deformation are categorized. Particularly with regard to reinforcement, since the required strength is increasing more and more, in the cold press molding, the ability of the press becomes insufficient or the shape freezing property deteriorates, Para[0003]. Kawasaki teaches that the present inventors have completed the present invention by manufacturing parts having sufficient toughness and tensile strength, Para[0006]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the steel taught by Li in view of Kawasaki to achieve sufficient toughness and tensile strength resulting in the impact toughness taught by Kawasaki.
Furthermore, Ono teaches a steel sheet and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Ono teaches a bending angle of 90°, Para[0139]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Ono discloses that the present invention relates to a steel sheet and a manufacturing method thereof. And more particularly to a steel sheet suitable for manufacturing parts such as automobiles and household appliances formed by cold pressing. In recent years, from a further increase in lightweighting needs to automobile bodies, Para[0003]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to produce the steel taught by Li in view of Kawasaki, obtaining the bending angle disclosed by Ono in order to reduce the weight of the steel and better serve automobile applications. Thus, Li, Kawasaki and Ono teach all limitations of claim 22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that (remarks, page 9 of 11) Li fails to disclose the two relationships of 0.24%≤C+(Mn/6)≤45 %; 0.05%≤Nb+Ti+(Bx10)≤15%. Examiner asserts that Li discloses ranges for C, Mn, Nb, Ti and B that are able to satisfy these two relationships. One of ordinary skill in the art could select within the ranges disclosed by Li and satisfy the relationships as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 9 of 11) Li’s teaching of at least 98% martensite is in contrast to the claimed microstructure of ≥ 75% martensite or bainite, and a remainder ferrite or retained austenite. This is not found persuasive as Li’s teaching of martensite satisfies the claim limitation of 75% or more martensite or bainite and Li also discloses a two-phase structure composed of ferrite and martensite, Para[0009]. Li also teaches austenite, Para[0016]. Therefore, Li does in fact teach the claimed microstructure.
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 9 of 11) Li’s annealing is in contrast to the claimed annealing because Li does not disclose the annealing temperature while making hot-formed steel. This is not found persuasive as Li teaches that in order to further control the grain size after annealing, a low-temperature critical annealing refinement grain technique is adopted, and the heating rate, the heating temperature and the holding time are controlled according to the steel bar composition, specifications, and the weight of the coil, and finally, The average grain size of the controlled annealed rolls is less than 8 um, Para[0066]. The instant specification states that the anneal is to ensure that the size of the original austenite grains is refined after the steel plate is hot stamped, pg[13]. Therefore, Li’s annealing is meant to achieve the same end goal of refining the grain size as the claimed invention. Thus, there does not appear to be any meaningful difference between Li’s annealing and that of the claimed invention. Additionally, given that Li’s average grain size of less than 8 µm substantially overlaps with the claimed grain size of less than 10 µm, one of ordinary skill in the art, following the annealing teachings of Li, would necessarily produce a substantially identical steel resulting in room temperature impact toughness that meets the claimed limitation. Additionally, Li discloses a preparation method of dual-phase hot formed steel with a heating temperature is 750～850°C so that the formed steel is in the two phase regions corresponding to austenite and ferrite, Para[0009]. While Li doesn’t explicitly state that this is the annealing temperature, Li teaches this range in order to control the microstructure. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use this temperature range during annealing to control the microstructure. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Li does in fact teach the claimed annealing.
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 10 of 11) Li’s deficiencies are not cured by Kawasaki because Kawasaki states that with respect to toughness, charpy tests were performed below room temperature. This is not found persuasive as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the impact toughness of steels generally increases as the operational or testing temperature increases. Therefore, the impact toughness of Kawasaki would increase at room temperature. Given that Kawaski’s values for impact toughness below room temperature already meet the limitations of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the room temperature impact toughness of the steel disclosed by Kawaski would also meet the limitations of the claimed invention since it would be higher than the disclosed value.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has attached previously cited foreign references with their original documents that were inadvertently omitted in the non-final action. References Included herein: CN104195443A, WO2011158818A1 and WO2018062380A1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
