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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of JP 2021-079218 filed May 7, 2021 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is also acknowledged of WO 2022/234760, the WIPO publication of PCT/JP 2022/017334 filed April 8, 2022.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks and Claim Amendments filed July 10, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
July 10, 2026
Amended
1-3
Pending
1-3
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 1 lines 7-9 “(including 0% by mass)”.
Claim 2 lines 3-6 “(including 0% by mass)”.
Response to Remarks filed July 10, 2026
Haga (JP 2013-032581 machine translation) in view of Sasaki (JP 2005-089821 machine translation); Haga (JP 2013-032581 machine translation) in view of Tomita (US 4,938,266)
Applicant's arguments filed July 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Haga discloses lowering the steel sheet in a short period of time and stopping the rapid cooling, but not cooling for 0.4 seconds or more, a sufficiently long period of time (para. spanning pp. 5-6), where in Haga [0082] Table 2 and [0089] Table 3 water-cooling for 0.4 seconds or more failed to produce Haga’s desired advantageous effects (p. 6 para. 2) of ductility, work hardening, and stretch flanging, as evidenced by Test Nos. 2, 4, and 11 (Haga [0089] Table 3, [0091]), such that Haga teaches away from water-cooling time of at least 0.4 seconds (p. 6 para. 4).
Test Nos. 2, 4, and 11 of Haga [0082] Table 2 have cooling rates of 61°C/s, 65°C/s, and 51°C/s, respectively, which are less than the disclosed minimum cooling rate of 300°C or higher (Haga [0066]), such that they are outside of the scope of Haga’s invention.
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2123(I).
Haga discloses hot rolling completion temperature above the Ar3 point, preferably above 820°C and preferably less than 950°C ([0062]) followed by rapid cooling to 780°C or lower, such as particularly preferably 720°C or lower, with an average cooling rate during rapid cooling of 300°C/s or higher ([0066]). In Haga the examples cool to as low as 650°C (Table 2). Cooling from 950°C to 650°C at a rate of 300°C/s takes 1.0 second ((950°C-650°C)/300°C/s). In Haga Table 2 many examples start cooling at 900°C and finish cooling at 660°C, where, for these cooling start and stop temperatures, a cooling rate of up to 600°C/s has a cooling time of at least 0.4 seconds ((900°C-660°C)/600°C/s). Therefore, the cooling start temperature, stop temperature, and rate read on a cooling time that overlaps with the claimed at least 0.4 seconds such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Furthermore, Haga does not teach away from a water-cooling time of at least 0.4 seconds because the disclosed cooling start temperature, stop temperature, and rate read on a water-cooling time that overlaps with that claimed (MPEP 2144.05(I)), and Haga does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. MPEP 2123(II).
The applicant argues Haga, Sasaki, and Tomita do not provide motivation to achieve the claimed invention nor describe a correlation or relationship among water volume density, total water-cooling time, softening, and cracking inhibition (para. spanning pp. 6-7) by not specifying the conditions nor suggesting the problem of end cracking during cold rolling (p. 7 paras. 2-3), where the claimed cooling control inhibits the hot rolled structure from recovering, recrystallizing, and/or undergoing grain growth, promoting ferrite/pearlite transformation at width-direction end portions, distal end, or tail end, and softening (applicant’s specification [0014], [0051], [0055]), keeping the end portion from hardening and preventing end portion cracking during cold rolling ([0014], [0015], [0082] Table 3, [0084] Table 4, [0084]) (Remarks p. 5 para. 2).
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art does not specify conditions regarding the problem of end cracking during cold rolling, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
With respect to cracking, Haga discloses determining hole expansion ratio of hot-rolled and annealed steel sheets as a measure of crack penetration ([0018], [0087]) with the inventive steel having high strength, good ductility, good work hardening properties, and good stretch flange properties ([0013]).
With respect to the claimed cooling, Haga discloses an overlapping cooling time within an overlapping time ([0066], Table 2) and either one of Sasaki or Tomita disclose the obviousness of the claimed water volume density for accelerated cooling to ensure uniform steel cooling (Sasaki [0042]; Tomita 4:15-17, 5:23-25). Similarly, applicant’s specification discloses the water volume density is controlled for sufficient cooling and to prevent hardening of the end portion of the steel sheet (i.e. nonuniform cooling) (applicant’s specification [0052]). “Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention.” MPEP 716.02(c)(II).
For the above cited reasons, the rejections of Haga in view of Sasaki and Haga in view of Tomita are maintained.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 lines 12-13 recite “volume density of 100 L/min/m2”. Applicant’s specification at [0053] describes determining the water volume density by dividing a water flow rate (L/min) used for cooling in the portion to be cooled of the steel sheet by the length (m) and width (m) of the section of the cooling facility or the like. The length and width each have units of m, however the volume density units are in m2, indicating the water flow rate is divided by the area (length * width) of the portion of the steel sheet being cooled. Applicant’s claimed units appear to be equivalent to L/min∙m2, calculated by
L
m
i
n
*
1
m
2
.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haga (JP 2013-032581 machine translation) in view of Sasaki (JP 2005-089821 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Haga discloses a method for manufacturing a steel sheet for cold rolling ([0001]), the method comprising:
hot-rolling a slab ([0061]) with an overlapping chemical composition ([0016], [0026]-[0029], [0050]-[0060])
so that an outlet temperature of a finishing rolling mill is from 800°C to 940°C (above Ar3 and above 820°C and preferably less than 950°C) ([0062]);
cooling at least a portion of the hot-rolled steel sheet within 3.0 seconds after passing through a final stand of the finish rolling mill and being sent out on a run-out table (cooling within 0.4 seconds of completion of rolling) ([0066], Table 2); and
coiling, at a coiling temperature of at least 550°C, the cooled hot-rolled steel sheet (winding preferably above 550°C and preferably less than 650°C) ([0068]).
With respect to cooling for at least 0.4 seconds, Haga discloses hot rolling completion temperature above the Ar3 point, preferably above 820°C and preferably less than 950°C ([0062]) followed by rapid cooling to 780°C or lower, such as particularly preferably 720°C or lower, with an average cooling rate during rapid cooling of 300°C/s or higher ([0066]). In Haga the examples cool to as low as 650°C (Table 2). Cooling from 950°C to 660°C at a rate of 300°C/s takes 1.0 second ((950°C-660°C)/300°C/s). In Haga Table 2 many examples start cooling at 900°C and finish cooling at 660°C, where, for these cooling start and stop temperatures, a cooling rate of 300°C/s to 600°C/s has a cooling time of 0.8 to 0.4 seconds ((900°C-660°C)/300°C/s to (900°C-660°C)/600°C/s). Therefore, the cooling start temperature, stop temperature, and rate read on a cooling time that overlaps with the claimed at least 0.4 seconds.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 1 (mass%)
Haga (mass%)
Haga Citation
C
0.15 to 0.25
0.020 to 0.30
[0050]
Si
0.8 to 3.0
0.10 to 3.00
[0051]
Mn
1.8 to 3.0
1.00 to 3.50
[0053]
Ni, Cr, Cu, and Mo
1.0 or less
Cr: 1.0 or less
Mo: 0.50 or less
[0059]
Ti, Nb, V
1.0 or less
Ti: less than 0.050
Nb: less than 0.050
V: less than 0.50
[0058]
B
0.01 or less
0.010 or less
[0059]
Haga is silent to cooling at a water volume density of 100 L/min/m2 or more.
Sasaki discloses manufacturing a steel sheet ([0001]) comprising cooling water volume density of at least 100 L/min/m2 (2000 to 7000 l/min∙m2) ([0042]-[0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Haga to use a cooling water volume density of 2000 to 7000 l/min∙m2 to create a uniform structure by strong cooling (Sasaki [0042]). Further, the cooling rates of Haga (400°C/s or higher, [0066], Table 2) and Sasaki (150°C/sec or higher, [0019], [0023]) overlap, such that the cooling water volume density of Sasaki achieves the desired cooling rate of Haga. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
In the event it is determined that the disclosed water volume density of Sasaki does not overlap with that claimed because of the units, then the following rationale is applied.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature (or cooling water volume density) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature (or cooling water volume density) is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claimed are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 2, Haga discloses the slab with an overlapping composition ([0016], [0026]-[0029], [0050]-[0060]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 2 (mass%)
Haga (mass%)
Haga Citation
P
0.1 or less
0.10 or less
[0054]
S
0.01 or less
0.010 or less
[0055]
Al
0.10 or less
2.00 or less
[0056]
N
0.01 or less
0.010 or less
[0057]
Regarding claim 3, Haga discloses a method for manufacturing a cold-rolled steel sheet, comprising cold-rolling a steel sheet manufactured by the method of claim 1 at a rolling rate from 30% to 80% (40% or more to less than 80%) ([0069]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haga (JP 2013-032581 machine translation) in view of Tomita (US 4,938,266).
Regarding claim 1, Haga discloses a method for manufacturing a steel sheet for cold rolling ([0001]), the method comprising:
hot-rolling a slab ([0061]) having an overlapping chemical composition ([0016], [0026]-[0029], [0050]-[0060])
so that an outlet temperature of a finishing rolling mill from 800°C to 940°C (above Ar3 and above 820°C and preferably less than 950°C) ([0062]);
cooling at least a portion of the hot-rolled steel sheet within 3.0 seconds after passing through a final stand of the finish rolling mill and being sent out on a run-out table (cooling within 0.4 seconds of completion of rolling) ([0066], Table 2); and
coiling, at a coiling temperature of at least 550°C, the cooled hot-rolled steel sheet (winding preferably above 550°C and preferably less than 650°C) ([0068]).
With respect to cooling for at least 0.4 seconds, Haga discloses hot rolling completion temperature above the Ar3 point, preferably above 820°C and preferably less than 950°C ([0062]) followed by rapid cooling to 780°C or lower, such as particularly preferably 720°C or lower, with an average cooling rate during rapid cooling of 300°C/s or higher ([0066]). In Haga the examples cool to as low as 650°C (Table 2). Cooling from 950°C to 660°C at a rate of 300°C/s takes 1.0 second ((950°C-660°C)/300°C/s). In Haga Table 2 many examples start cooling at 900°C and finish cooling at 660°C, where, for these cooling start and stop temperatures, a cooling rate of 300°C/s to 600°C/s has a cooling time of 0.8 to 0.4 seconds ((900°C-660°C)/300°C/s to (900°C-660°C)/600°C/s). Therefore, the cooling start temperature, stop temperature, and rate read on a cooling time that overlaps with the claimed at least 0.4 seconds.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 1 (mass%)
Haga (mass%)
Haga Citation
C
0.15 to 0.25
0.020 to 0.30
[0050]
Si
0.8 to 3.0
0.10 to 3.00
[0051]
Mn
1.8 to 3.0
1.00 to 3.50
[0053]
Ni, Cr, Cu, and Mo
1.0 or less
Cr: 1.0 or less
Mo: 0.50 or less
[0059]
Ti, Nb, V
1.0 or less
Ti: less than 0.050
Nb: less than 0.050
V: less than 0.50
[0058]
B
0.01 or less
0.010 or less
[0059]
Haga is silent to cooling at a water volume density of 100 L/min/m2 or more.
Tomita discloses manufacturing a steel sheet (1:7-8, 45-48) comprising cooling water volume density of at least 100 L/min/m2 (minimum of 0.3 m3/m2∙minute, 300 L/m2∙minute) (4:15-17, 5:23-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Haga to use a cooling water volume density minimum of 300 L/m2∙minute (0.3 m3/m2∙minute) for accelerated cooling that ensures the steel is cooled uniformly (Tomita 4:15-17, 5:23-25). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
In the event it is determined that the disclosed water volume density of Tomita does not overlap with that claimed because of the units, then the following rationale is applied.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature (or cooling water volume density) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature (or cooling water volume density) is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claimed are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 2, Haga discloses the slab with an overlapping composition ([0016], [0026]-[0029], [0050]-[0060]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 2 (mass%)
Haga (mass%)
Haga Citation
P
0.1 or less
0.10 or less
[0054]
S
0.01 or less
0.010 or less
[0055]
Al
0.10 or less
2.00 or less
[0056]
N
0.01 or less
0.010 or less
[0057]
Regarding claim 3, Haga discloses a method for manufacturing a cold-rolled steel sheet, comprising cold-rolling a steel sheet manufactured by the method of claim 1 at a rolling rate from 30% to 80% (40% or more to less than 80%) ([0069]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Related Art
Fujibayashi (JP 2003-191005 machine translation)
Fujibayashi discloses cooling a hot rolled steel strip with cooling water ([0001]) to eliminate temperature unevenness in the width direction ([0027]) by cooling with a water density of 2500 L/min∙m2 or higher from the start of cooling ([0020]) less than 2 seconds after hot finish cooling ([0023], [0037]). Fujibayashi discloses finish rolling at 880 to 910°C ([0034]) then cooling to 700 to 720°C ([0036], [0045])
Nishio (JP 2015-147991 machine translation)
Nishio discloses manufacturing cold-rolled steel sheets ([0001]) by hot rolling at Ar3 or higher ([0050]-[0051]), first water cooling within 0.3 seconds after completing of hot rolling to a temperature over 750°C with a high water density ([0056]-[0058]), cooling stop for 0.3 to 3.0 seconds, second water cooling to 750°C or lower ([0059]-[0064]), winding between 40 and 620°C ([0065]), then cold rolling at 40% to 60% ([0066]) ([0015]-[0017]). Nishio discloses a composition that overlaps with that claimed ([0017]-[0020], [0038]-[0048]).
Ueoka (US 2010/0192658)
Ueoka discloses cooling a hot strip ([0001]) using cooling water ([0028]) with a water flow rate of 350 to 1200 L/min∙m2 ([0028]-[0029]), which is the flow rate of normal run-out cooling ([0067]-[0068]).
Sugae (JP 2016-166388 machine translation)
Sugae discloses a steel structure ([0001]) manufactured by cooling from a finish rolling temperature of 950 to 800°C by injecting water at a flow rate of 20 to 300 L/min and cooling within 5 s after completion of finish rolling at an average rate of 25°C/s or higher to a temperature of 650 to 500°C ([0024]).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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 WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights