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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/16/2023, 12/4/2024, and 6/12/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2024/0141467) in view of Nako et al. (EP 3159418).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses an automotive member comprising a resistance spot weld formed by resistance-spot-welding a plurality of steel sheets including at least one high strength steel sheet (“High strength steel sheets provided for vehicle components” [0004]; “AC spot welding” [0123] is performed on steel sheets S; Fig. 2 shows two steel sheets welded together, with a weld nugget N [0118]) having a chemical composition comprising, by mass % (“steel sheet according to an aspect of the present invention containing, as a chemical composition, by mass %” [0013]):
C:
Si:
Mn:
P: 0.05% or less (“P: 0% to 0.040%” [0013]);;
S:
Al:
N: 0.010% or less (“N: 0% to 0.0100%” [0013]);
at least one selected from Nb:
the balance being Fe and incidental impurities (“a remainder: Fe and impurities” [0013]),
wherein within a region of a nugget of the resistance spot weld:
a microstructure is a composite microstructure containing ferrite at a volume fraction of
While Suzuki discloses the composition as described above, Suzuki does not expressly disclose C: 0.21 to 0.40%, Si: 1.0 to 1.9%, Mn: 2.0 to 3.6%, S: 0.004% or less, Al: 0.01 to 0.10%, and at least one selected from Nb: 0.005 to 0.080% and Ti: 0.005 to 0.080%. Additionally, while Suzuki discloses the volume fractions of ferrite, martensite, and tempered martensite as described above, Suzuki does not expressly disclose ferrite at a volume fraction of 1 to 30%, martensite at a volume fraction of 1 to 50%, and tempered martensite at a volume fraction of 20% or more.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include C: 0.21 to 0.40%, Si: 1.0 to 1.9%, Mn: 2.0 to 3.6%, S: 0.004% or less, Al: 0.01 to 0.10%, and at least one selected from Nb: 0.005 to 0.080% and Ti: 0.005 to 0.080%, as well as ferrite at a volume fraction of 1 to 30%, martensite at a volume fraction of 1 to 50%, and tempered martensite at a volume fraction of 20% or more, because, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Suzuki does not expressly disclose wherein the “region of the nugget of the resistance spot weld” extends from a point A that denotes a position 50 µm from an edge of the nugget in a direction toward a central portion of the nugget along a steel sheet faying surface to a point B that denotes a position 200 µm from the edge of the nugget in a direction toward a heat-affected zone along the steel sheet faying surface.
However, Suzuki shows in Fig. 2 the location of the nugget N, and the hardness of the nugget with respect to the distance from the nugget center, with a heat-affected zone along the steel sheet faying surface SF (see also [0118]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the “region of the nugget of the resistance spot weld” extends from a point A that denotes a position 50 µm from an edge of the nugget in a direction toward a central portion of the nugget along a steel sheet faying surface to a point B that denotes a position 200 µm from the edge of the nugget in a direction toward a heat-affected zone along the steel sheet faying surface, because a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Suzuki does not expressly disclose wherein within a region of a nugget of the resistance spot weld: an average number density of Nb-based precipitate grains having a grain diameter less than 0.09 µm and Ti-based precipitate grains having a grain diameter less than 0.09 µm is 10 grains or more per 100 μm2 in a sheet cross section.
However, Nako, directed to a steel plate and bonded assembly [Title], discloses number densities of Ti-based precipitate grains (“TiN-containing precipitates”) for different diameters of the precipitates: “The steel plate includes TiN-containing precipitates having an equivalent circle diameter of greater than 20 nm to smaller than 60 nm in a sectional number density of 3.0× 105 per square millimeter to 8.5x 105 per square millimeter and includes TiN-containing precipitates having an equivalent circle diameter of 60 nm or more in a sectional number density of 10× 105 per square millimeter or more” [0013].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein within a region of a nugget of the resistance spot weld: an average number density of Nb-based precipitate grains having a grain diameter less than 0.09 µm and Ti-based precipitate grains having a grain diameter less than 0.09 µm is 10 grains or more per 100 μm2 in a sheet cross section. Nako describes, “The steel plate includes relatively small TiN-containing precipitates having an equivalent circle diameter of greater than 20 nm to smaller than 60 nm and relatively large TiN-containing precipitates having an equivalent circle diameter of 60 nm or more in sectional number densities in specific ranges. The region adjacent to the fusion line in the heat affected zone is exposed to a relatively high temperature upon welding. In this region upon welding, most of the relatively small TiN-containing precipitates dissolve and disappear, whereas the relatively large TiN-containing precipitates readily remain undissolved Both the undissolved, residual relatively large TiN-containing precipitates and part of the relatively small TiN-containing precipitates offer austenite grain pinning effects in the region adjacent to the fusion line. In contrast, the region at some distance from the fusion line is exposed to a not so high temperature upon welding as compared with the region adjacent to the fusion line. In this region, most of even the relatively small TiN-containing precipitates remain as undissolved. The steel plate includes the relatively small TiN-containing precipitates in a larger sectional number density as compared with the relatively large TiN-containing precipitates. Accordingly, the relatively small TiN-containing precipitates predominately offer the austenite grain pinning effects in the region at some distance from the fusion line” [0014]. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki discloses wherein the chemical composition further comprises, by mass %, at least one selected from the group consisting of:
V: 0.05% or less,
Cr: 1.0% or less,
Mo: 0.50% or less (“Mo: 0% to 0.50%” [0013]).,
Cu: 0.50% or less,
Ni: 0.50% or less,
Sb: 0.020% or less,
B: 0.010% or less,
Ca: 0.0050% or less, and
REMs: 0.0050% or less.
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki discloses wherein the high strength steel sheet has a tensile strength of 1400 MPa or more (see Tables 4-1 and 4-2, which show examples of sheets having a tensile strength of 1400 MPa or more). Furthermore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the high strength steel sheet has a tensile strength of 1400 MPa or more, because a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki does not expressly disclose wherein the high strength steel sheet has a microstructure containing retained austenite at a volume fraction of 5 to 30%.
However, Suzuki states, “As the remainder other than ferrite, bainite, and martensite, one or more selected from residual austenite and pearlite may be contained. The volume percentage of the remainder is, for example, 10% or less or 5% or less. The volume percentage of the remainder may be 0%” [0093].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the high strength steel sheet has a microstructure containing retained austenite at a volume fraction of 5 to 30%, because, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki discloses wherein the high strength steel sheet has a coated layer on a surface thereof (“the steel sheet is considered to be plated with a hot-dip galvanizing coating” [0108]).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki discloses wherein the coated layer is a galvanized layer or a galvannealed layer (“the steel sheet is considered to be plated with a hot-dip galvanizing coating” [0108]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are allowed. The prior art of record dos not teach, disclose, or suggest the resistance spot welding method for the automotive member according to claim 1, or the resistance spot welding method for the automotive member according to claim 2. Additionally, it would not have been obvious to modify the prior art of record to arrive at the inventions of claims 7 and 8 without improper hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2018/030501 is directed to an automotive member comprising a welded steel sheet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH KERR whose telephone number is (571)272-3073. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:30 AM - 4:30 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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights