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. Election/Restrictions & Status of Claims REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e). When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions: As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories: (1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or (2) A product and a process of use of said product; or (3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or (4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or (5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process. Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c). Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372. This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted. Group FILLIN "Enter Group indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT I , claims FILLIN "Enter claim number(s)." 11-15 , drawn to FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT a high-toughness ultrahigh-strength steel . Group FILLIN "Enter Group indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT II , claims FILLIN "Enter claim number(s)" 16-20 , drawn to FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT a manufacturing method of a high-toughness ultrahigh-strength steel . The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: FILLIN "Identify the groups involved. See the Examiner Note for more information." Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of FILLIN "Identify the technical feature shared by the groups." a steel , this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of WO 2020/262652 A1 via its US English equivalent of US 2022/0195556 A1 of Nakano ( US’556 ) . US’556 teaches {abstract, [0011]-[0125]} [0015]-[0018] “A steel sheet including a steel micro-structure containing, in volume fraction,” “tempered martensite: 85% or more, retained austenite: 5% or more to less than 15%, and ferrite, pearlite, bainite, and as-quenched martensite being less than 10% in total” [0051] “a steel sheet that has high strength (specifically, a tensile strength of 1100 MPa or more)” [0092] “As with Ti, Nb (niobium) is an element being useful in controlling morphology of carbide and is also an element being effective at improving toughness of the steel sheet by refining the steel micro-structure” [0096] “As with Ti and Nb, V (vanadium) is an element being useful in controlling morphology of carbide and is also an element being effective at improving toughness of the steel sheet by refining the steel micro-structure.” Thereby reading on the instant technical feature indicating that the instant technical feature is not a special technical feature. During a telephone conversation with FILLIN "Enter the appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT FENG MA Ph.D. on FILLIN "Enter date of the conversation" \* MERGEFORMAT 30 March 2026 a provisional election was made FILLIN "Enter either -- with -- or -- without" \* MERGEFORMAT WITHOUT traverse to prosecute the invention of Group FILLIN "Enter Group indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT I , claim(s) FILLIN "Enter claim number(s)." 11-15 , drawn to FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT a high-toughness ultrahigh-strength steel . Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims FILLIN "Enter list of non-elected claims" \* MERGEFORMAT 1 6 -20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17( i ). The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains phrases which can be implied and the term “ultrahigh” is missing a space or hyphen . A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “ultrahigh” is missing a space or hyphen through the entirety of the specification. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim s 11-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: The term “ultrahigh” is missing a space or hyphen . Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim s 11-15 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. Regarding claims 11-15, the term “ high-toughness ultrahigh-strength steel ” in claims 11-15 is a relative term which renders the claim s indefinite. The term “ high-toughness ultrahigh-strength steel ” is not defined by the claim s , the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As neither the specification nor the claims provide an explicit definition for the term, it is unclear what specific toughness and strength (types, ranges) would be meet the scope of the claims. Regarding claim 15, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Specifically, it is unclear what is encompassed by “film-like residual austenite” . In addition, the term “finely-diffused composite ε-carbide” and “nano-scale NbC ” in claim FILLIN "Identify the claim." \* MERGEFORMAT 15 are a relative term s which renders the claim indefinite. The term s are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As neither the specification nor the claims provide an explicit definition for the term, it is unclear what specific carbides (density, distribution, grain size) would be meet the scope of the claims. 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. List 1 Element Instant Claims (mass%) Prior Art (mass%) C 0.27 – 0.35 0.28 – 0.34 claim 13 0.15 – 0.38 Si 1.10 – 1.70 1.20 – 1.60 claim 13 0.80 – 2.50 Mn 0.70 – 1.10 0.80 – 1.10 claim 13 0.6 – 5.0 Cr 1.00 – 1.40 1.20 – 1.35 claim 13 0 – 2.0 Ni 0.10 – 0.50 0.15 – 0.30 claim 13 0 – 1.00 Mo 0.05 – 0.50 0.05 – 0.30 claim 13 0 – 0.50 W 0.05 – 0.10 0 – 0.100 Nb 0.01 – 0.04 0.015 – 0.038 claim 13 0 – 0.10 V 0 – 0.150 claim 12 0.03 – 0.1 claim 14 0 – 0.50 Fe + impurities Balance Balance Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/262652 A1 via its US English equivalent of US 2022/0195556 A1 of Nakano ( US’556 ). Regarding claims 11-15 , WO 2020/262652 A1 via its US English equivalent of US 2022/0195556 A1 of Nakano ( US’556 ) teaches {abstract, [0011]-[0125]} [0015]-[0018] “ A steel sheet including a steel micro-structure containing, in volume fraction, ” “ tempered martensite: 85% or more, retained austenite: 5% or more to less than 15%, and ferrite, pearlite, bainite, and as-quenched martensite being less than 10% in tota l” [0051] “ a steel sheet that has high strength (specifically, a tensile strength of 1100 MPa or more) ” [0092] “ As with Ti, Nb (niobium) is an element being useful in controlling morphology of carbide and is also an element being effective at improving toughness of the steel sheet by refining the steel micro-structure ” [0096] “ As with Ti and Nb, V (vanadium) is an element being useful in controlling morphology of carbide and is also an element being effective at improving toughness of the steel sheet by refining the steel micro-structure. ” with a composition wherein the claimed ranges of the constituent elements of the instant alloy of the instant claims overlap or lie inside the ranges of various elements of the alloy of the prior art as shown in the List 1 above. As the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness is established as it 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 to select the claimed composition over the prior art disclosure since the prior art teaches the similar property/utility throughout the disclosed 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. 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); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I . Regarding the recited microstructure of claim 15, the prior art teaches “ [0054] The steel micro-structure of the steel sheet according to the present embodiment contains, in volume fraction, tempered martensite: 85% or more, retained austenite: 5% or more to less than 15%, and ferrite, pearlite, bainite, and as-quenched martensite being less than 10% in tota l” which reads on the lath martensite and residual austenite of the instant claim. Regarding the NbC , the prior art teaches “ [0092] As with Ti, Nb (niobium) is an element being useful in controlling morphology of carbide and is also an element being effective at improving toughness of the steel sheet by refining the steel micro-structure. ” “ [0062] (The number of Carbides) [0063] In the steel sheet according to the present embodiment, when a region measuring 20000 μm2 and centered about a t/4 point (t denotes a thickness of the steel sheet) from a surface of the steel sheet is observed, the number of carbides having an equivalent circle radius of 0.1 μm or more is to be 100 or less. If the number of carbides having an equivalent circle radius of 0.1 μm or more is excessively large, a sufficient hole expandability cannot be kept, and crash resistance deteriorates. For that reason, the number of carbides is to be 100 or less in an area of 20000 μm2. The number is preferably 80 or less and more preferably 70 or less. Still more preferably, the number is 50 or less. ” thereby reading on niobium carbides of the instant claim. Regarding the epsilon carbide, one skilled in the art recognizes that these carbides are formed during the tempering or autotempering of the martensite. As the prior art teaches a tempered martensitic structure as well as the process of tempering [0159] -[ 0162], one skilled in the art would expect the steel of the prior art to also have the ε-carbide as recited in the instant claims. 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01 I . “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01 II . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JOPHY S. KOSHY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0030 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:30 AM- 5:00 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT KEITH HENDRICKS can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /JOPHY S. KOSHY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733