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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 8 April 2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended and remains pending in the application. Claim 5 has been canceled.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1 – Claims 1-9 and 16-19 in the reply filed on 8 April 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the prior art reference Bi (CN109371325) does not disclose the special technical feature linking the two inventions. This is not found persuasive because Bi discloses a steel plate with compositional ranges that overlap for every element of the claimed invention. Additionally, Bi discloses ranges for coiling temperature and annealing temperature which 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, Bi discloses a product that is substantially identical in composition and produced by the same process as the special technical feature. 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. While Bi does not specifically teach room-temperature impact toughness, yield strength, or the microstructure percentage claimed in the instant invention, these are physical properties which must be present. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, see MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, Bi teaches the special technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-15 and 20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method for manufacturing a hot stamped component, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8 April 2026.
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, 9, 17, 18, and 19 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 claims that the following formula must be satisfied: 0.24%≤C+Mn/6≤0.45%. It is unclear if applicant is claiming the sum of C and Mn divided by 6, which would correspond to (C +Mn)/6 or if applicant is claiming the sum of C not divided by 6 and Mn divided by 6, which would correspond to C + (Mn/6). The specification does not provide clarity and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 2-6, and 9 are rejected as they depend on claim 1.
Claim 1 also claims that the following formula must be satisfied: 0.05%≤Nb+Ti+Bx10≤0.15%. It is unclear if applicant is claiming the sum of Nb, Ti, and B multiplied by 10, which would correspond to (Nb + Ti + B) x 10 or if applicant is claiming the sum of Nb and Ti added only to B multiplied by 10, which would correspond to Nb + Ti + (B x 10). The specification does not provide clarity and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 2-6, and 9 are rejected as they depend on claim 1.
Claims 9, 17, and 19 claim that the VDA cold bending angle is ≥ 85° or ≥ 90° or 85-120°. It is unclear if the claim would encompass all values greater than 85° or only values greater than 90° or only values within the range of 85-120°. The specification does not provide clarity and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 9, 17, and 19 also claim that room temperature impact toughness is ≥ 85 J/cm---2 or ≥ 90 J/cm2 or 80-115 J/cm2. It is unclear if the claim would encompass all values greater than 85 or only values greater than 90 or only values within the range of 80-115. The specification does not provide clarity and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 and 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 and 19 both depend on claim 5 which was canceled in the Amendment filed 8 April 2026. A claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth, i.e., a non-canceled claim. 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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN104195443 of Li in view of WO2011158818 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[0013, 0014]. The ranges taught by Li overlap with the claimed ranges for every claimed element. 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%. 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 the same process as the claimed invention. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, 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[0054]. 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[0004]. Kawasaki teaches that the present inventors have completed the present invention by manufacturing parts having sufficient toughness and tensile strength, Para[0005]. 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[0014]. 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%. 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[0013]. 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, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN104195443 of Li in view of WO2011158818 of Kawasaki, as cited above, further in view of US2020224287 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[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 the same process as the claimed invention. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, 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 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[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 the same process as the claimed invention. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, 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.
Claim 18 claims the hot-stamped component having a tensile strength of ≥1000 MPa according to claim 5, wherein 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[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 the same process as the claimed invention. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, 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 18.
Claims 9, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN104195443 of Li in view of WO2011158818 of Kawasaki, as cited above, further in view of WO2018062380 of Ono.
Claim 9 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the VDA cold bending angle of the hot stamped component is ≥ 85° or≥ 90°or 85-120°; and/or the room temperature impact toughness of the hot stamped component is ≥ 85 J/cm2 or ≥ 90J/cm2 or 80-115 J/cm2.
Li teaches a bending angle of ≥ 75°, Para[0055]. 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 the same process as the claimed invention. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, 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[0054]. 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[0004]. Kawasaki teaches that the present inventors have completed the present invention by manufacturing parts having sufficient toughness and tensile strength, Para[0005]. 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[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 9.
Claim 17 further limits claim 2 by claiming that the VDA cold bending angle of the hot stamped component is ≥ 85°,or or 85-120°; and/or the room temperature impact toughness of the hot stamped component is ≥ 85 J/cm2, or ≥ 90J/cm2, or 80-115 J/cm2.
Li teaches a bending angle of ≥ 75°, Para[0055]. 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 the same process as the claimed invention. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, 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[0054]. 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[0004]. Kawasaki teaches that the present inventors have completed the present invention by manufacturing parts having sufficient toughness and tensile strength, Para[0005]. 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[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 17.
Claim 19 claims the hot-stamped component having a tensile strength of ≥1000 MPa according to claim 5, wherein the VDA cold bending angle of the hot stamped component is ≥ 85°,or or 85-120°; and/or the room temperature impact toughness of the hot stamped component is ≥ 85 J/cm2, or ≥ 90J/cm2, or 80-115 J/cm2.
Li teaches a bending angle of ≥ 75°, Para[0055]. 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 the same process as the claimed invention. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, 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[0054]. 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[0004]. Kawasaki teaches that the present inventors have completed the present invention by manufacturing parts having sufficient toughness and tensile strength, Para[0005]. 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[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 19.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights