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 .
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 Sato et al. (JP 2013-227657).
In regard to claim 1, Sato et al. (JP ‘657) discloses cold rolled steel alloy sheets having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below ([0007-0008] and [0060]).
Element
Instant Claim
(mass percent)
Sato et al. (JP ‘657)
(weight percent)
Overlap
C
0.16 – 0.40
0.1 – 0.2
0.16 – 0.2
Si
0.05 – 2
0.2 – 2
0.2 – 2
Mn
0.50 – 4
1 – 3
1 – 3
P
0 – 0.05
0 – 0.05
0 – 0.05
S
0 – 0.01
0 – 0.01
0 – 0.01
Al
0.001 – 1
0.01 – 0.1
0.01 – 0.1
N
0 – 0.01
0 – 0.01
0 – 0.01
O
0 – 0.005
0
0
Cr
0 – 2
greater than 0 – 1
greater than 0 – 1
Mo
0 – 1
greater than 0 – 1
greater than 0 – 1
Cu
0 – 1
greater than 0 – 1
greater than 0 – 1
Ni
0 – 1
greater than 0 – 1
greater than 0 – 1
B
0 – 0.01
0.0002 – 0.01
0.0002 – 0.01
Co
0 – 1
0
0
W
0 – 1
0
0
Element
Instant Claim
(mass percent)
Sato et al. (JP ‘657)
(weight percent)
Overlap
Sn
0 – 1
0
0
Sb
0 – 1
0
0
Nb
0 – 0.1
0
0
Ti
0 – 0.2
0.001 – 0.2
0.001 – 0.2
V
0 – 0.5
0
0
Ca
0 – 0.01
0
0
Mg
0 – 0.01
0
0
Ce
0 – 0.01
0
0
Zr
0 – 0.01
0
0
La
0 – 0.01
0
0
Hf
0 – 0.01
0
0
Bi
0 – 0.01
0
0
REM other than Ce/ La
0 – 0.01
0
0
Fe
Balance
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of carbon, silicon, manganese, phosphorus, sulfur, aluminum, nitrogen, oxygen, chromium, molybdenum, copper, nickel, boron, cobalt, tungsten, tin, antimony, niobium, titanium, vanadium, calcium, magnesium, cerium, zirconium, lanthanum, hafnium, bismuth and rare earth metals other than cerium and/or lanthanum disclosed by Soto et al. (JP ‘657) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of carbon, silicon, manganese, phosphorus, sulfur, aluminum, nitrogen, oxygen, chromium, molybdenum, copper, nickel, boron, cobalt, tungsten, tin, antimony, niobium, titanium, vanadium, calcium, magnesium, cerium, zirconium, lanthanum, hafnium, bismuth and rare earth metals other than cerium and/or lanthanum from the amounts disclosed by Sato e al. (JP ‘657) because Sato et al. (JP ‘657) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
With respect to the recitation “a steel microstructure in a range of 1/8 thickness to 3/8 thickness centered on ¼ thickness form the surface comprising, by area%, martensite: 90.0 to 99.5%, ferrite: 0 to 5%, retained austenite: 0.5 to 7.0%, and balance bainite, wherein a ratio of tempered martensite to the total martensite is 80 to 100%” in claim 1, Sato et al. (JP ‘657) discloses steel test pieces that are measured ¼ with respect to the thickness [0075], 65% area percent or more, but preferably 90% area or more [0060]. Sato et al. (JP ‘657) discloses 0 to 5% area retained austenite, which overlaps the range of the instant invention. MPEP 2144.05 I. Sato et al. (JP ‘657) discloses 0 to 20 area % ferrite, which encompasses the claimed range of ferrite [0062]. Sato et al. (JP ‘657) discloses 0 to 10 area % bainite, which would make up the remainder [0064].
Still regarding claim 1, Sato et al. (JP ‘657) discloses tensile strengths up to 1653 MPa (Table 3).
With respect to the recitation “a maximum value of curvature 1/R obtained by measuring the shape at a total width x length 300 mm region and expressed by the following formula (1) is 0.010 or less” and Equation 1, Sato et al. (JP ‘657) discloses substantially similar compositions, substantially similar microstructures and substantially similar strengths. Therefore, the claimed curvature would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 2, Sato et al. (JP ‘657) discloses greater than 0 to 1 weight percent chromium, which overlaps the range of the instant invention [0008]. MPEP 2144.05 I.
With respect to the recitation “wherein no fracture occurs at sheared surfaces in a hydrogen embrittlement test of shearing the cold rolled steel sheet, then heat treating it at 170°C for 10 minutes, and then immersing it in a concentration 0.3 g/L ammonium thiocyanate aqueous solution for 48 hours” in claim 3, Sato et al. (JP ‘657) discloses substantially similar compositions, substantially similar microstructures and substantially similar strengths. Therefore, the claimed property would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (JP 2013-227657) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Irie et al. (US 4,640,872).
In regard to claim 4, Sato et al. (JP ‘657) discloses steel alloy sheets as set forth above, but Sato et al. (JP ‘657) does not specify wherein the steel alloy sheets would have an electrogalvanized layer, a hot dip galvanized layer or a hot dip galvannealed layer.
Irie e al. (‘872) teaches electroplating Zn-Fe-P alloys on steel strips in order to improve corrosion resistance (abstract and column 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to electroplate Zn-Fe-P alloys, as disclosed by Irie et al. (‘872), on the steel sheets, as disclosed by Sato et al. (JP ‘657), in order to improve the corrosion resistance, as disclosed by Irie et al. (‘872) (abstract and column 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5 is objected to for the reasons as set forth in the Office Action of March 5, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, the Applicant primarily argues that there is a clear difference between the prior art to Sato et al. (JP ‘657) because Sato et al. (JP ‘657) does not teach or suggest the claimed feature of “a maximum value of curvature 1/R obtained by measuring the shape at a total width/length 300 mm region and expressed as being 0.010 or less based on the Formula (1).
In response, the Examiner notes that not only does Sato et al. (JP ‘657) have substantially similar compositions, microstructure and strengths, but Sato et al. (JP ‘657) teaches a desire to avoid warpage and make the steel sheet very flat ([0006] and [0079]). Since the desire of both the instant application and Sato et al. (JP ‘657) seek to have a sheet that lacks curvature or is very flat and not warped, the scope of Sato et al. (JP ‘657) and the instant invention would appear to at least overlap.
Second, the Applicant’s additional arguments pertain to processing steps. The Examiner has objected to the method step in claim 5 as being allowable and while the processing is important when determining the patentabilty of a product claim, in this instance the compositions, microstructures, strengths and even the desire for a flat surface is shared in both the instant application and the prior art reference. Therefore, the Examiner does not consider arguments with regard to processing to be persuasive for the product claims.
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 Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights