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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 20-21 and 37-41 in the reply filed on 5/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9, 18-19, 26, 30-32 and 35-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/13/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 20 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/195946 to Okumura et al (EP 3907304 A1 has been relied upon as an English language equivalent) in view of “Metallurgical Design of Flat Rolled Steels” by Ginzburg.
Regarding claim 20, Okumura ‘946 discloses a steel sheet production method comprising a sheet passing step of passing the steel strip, wherein the sheet passing step includes a vibration application step of applying vibration to the steel strip so that the steel strip is caused to vibrate at a frequency of 18-40 kHz (within the claimed range of 100 Hz to 100,000 Hz) and a maximum amplitude of 1 to 10 µm (within the claimed range of 10 nm to 500 µm) (Okumura ‘946, para [0042-0046]). Okumura ‘946 further discloses that the sheets are produced in the form of a coil (Okumura ‘946, para [0105]) which necessarily entails coiling the steel strip to obtain a product coil.
Okumura ‘946 is silent as to a step of uncoiling a steel sheet coil to feed a steel strip.
Ginzburg discloses that coiling and uncoiling steel strip upstream of processing steps allows for the length of the production line to be reduced (Ginzburg, pages 201-202, “7.7 Compact Strip Mills”, pages 208-214, Tables 7.12, 7.13, 7.14, 7.21).
Regarding claim 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coil and uncoil the sheet of Okumura ‘946 upstream of the sheet passing step as suggested by Ginzburg. The motivation for doing so would be to reduce the length of the production line (Ginzburg, pages 201-202, “7.7 Compact Strip Mills”, pages 208-214, Tables 7.12, 7.13, 7.14, 7.21).
Regarding claim 38, the steel of Okumura ‘946 has a tensile strength of 440 MPa or more (Okumura, para [0075]), overlapping the instantly claimed range of 590 MPa or more. 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 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges of Okumura ‘946 including the instantly claimed because a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case of overlapping ranges.
Claim(s) 39 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/195946 to Okumura et al (EP 3907304 A1 has been relied upon as an English language equivalent) in view of “Metallurgical Design of Flat Rolled Steels” by Ginzburg as applied to claims 20 and 38 above and further in view of the evidentiary reference “The Preparation of High-Purity Iron (99.987%) Employing a Process of Direct Reduction-Melting Separation-Slag Refining” by Li et al.
Okumura ‘946 in view of Ginzburg discloses a steel sheet production method as set forth above.
Regarding claims 39 and 40, Okumura ‘946 discloses an alloy comprising the following composition (Okumura, Table 1, Alloy A) which lies within the instantly claimed composition as follows:
Element
Claimed wt%
Okumura ‘946 wt%
Lies within?
C
0.030-0.800
0.07
Yes
Si
0.01-3.00
0.25
Yes
Mn
0.01-10.0
1.8
Yes
P
0.001-0.100
0.03
Yes
S
0.0001-0.0200
0.001
Yes
N
0.0005-0.0100
≤impurity
See below
Al
0-2.000
≤impurity
Yes
Nb
0-0.200
0.01
Yes
Cu
0-1.000
0.2
Yes
Mo
0-1.000
0.1
Yes
Fe
Balance
Balance
Yes
Nitrogen is not deliberately added to the alloy of Okumura ‘946 and as such is present in no more than impurity amounts. Li discloses that typical commercial electrolytic iron has a N content of 0.0038 wt% and typical technically pure iron has a N content of 0.0025 wt% (Li, page 3, Table 1), within the instantly claimed range of 0.0005-0.0100 wt% N. As such, the iron base alloy of Okumura ‘946 would be expected to contain N as an impurity in a similar amount within the instantly claimed N content range.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/195946 to Okumura et al (EP 3907304 A1 has been relied upon as an English language equivalent) in view of “Metallurgical Design of Flat Rolled Steels” by Ginzburg as applied to claims 20 and 38 above and further in view of EP 3754043 A1 to Yoshitomi et al.
Okumura ‘946 in view of Ginzburg discloses a steel sheet production method as set forth above.
Okumura ‘946 is silent as to diffusible hydrogen content of the product coil.
Yoshitomi discloses that the amount of diffusible hydrogen in steel should be kept to less than 0.25 mass ppm in order to avoid degradation of bendability of the steel (Yoshitomi, para [0055]).
Regarding claim 41, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to keep the diffusible hydrogen of the steel of Okumura ‘946 to less than 0.25 mass ppm as suggested by Yoshitomi. The motivation for doing so would be to avoid degradation of bendability of the steel (Yoshitomi, para [0055]).
Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,391,290 A to Ichiba et al in view of “Metallurgical Design of Flat Rolled Steels” by Ginzburg.
Regarding claim 20, Ichiba discloses a steel sheet production method comprising a sheet passing step of passing the steel strip, wherein the sheet passing step includes a vibration application step of applying vibration to the steel strip so that the steel strip is caused to vibrate at a frequency of 25-55 kHz (within the claimed range of 100 Hz to 100,000 Hz) and an intensity of 0.01-1000 W/100 cm2 (Ichiba, abstract, column 9 lines 50-65). Although Ichiba is silent as to the amplitude of the vibration, the intensity is directly dependent on both the frequency and amplitude of vibration. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. In the instant case, it would require little more than routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal or workable ranges of frequency that result in a workable intensity of the steel sheet production method of Ichiba.
Ichiba is silent as to a step of uncoiling a steel sheet coil to feed a steel strip and a step of coiling the steel strip to obtain a product coil.
Ginzburg discloses that coiling and uncoiling steel strip upstream of processing steps allows for the length of the production line to be reduced and steel strip production methods typically end in a downcoiler to produce a product coil (Ginzburg, pages 201-202, “7.7 Compact Strip Mills”, pages 208-214, Tables 7.12, 7.13, 7.14, 7.21).
Regarding claim 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coil and uncoil the sheet of Ichiba upstream of the sheet passing step and end in a downcoiler as suggested by Ginzburg. The motivation for doing so would be to reduce the length of the production line and produce a product coil (Ginzburg, pages 201-202, “7.7 Compact Strip Mills”, pages 208-214, Tables 7.12, 7.13, 7.14, 7.21).
Regarding claim 21, the vibration application step of Ichiba is performed while holding the steel strip at 45 °C (Ichiba, Example 1, column 12 lines 25-68), within the instantly claimed range of 300 °C or less.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,391,290 A to Ichiba et al in view of “Metallurgical Design of Flat Rolled Steels” by Ginzburg as applied to claims 20 and 21 above and further in view of EP 3754043 A1 to Yoshitomi et al.
Ichiba in view of Li discloses a steel sheet production method as set forth above.
Ichiba is silent as to diffusible hydrogen content of the product coil.
Yoshitomi discloses that the amount of diffusible hydrogen in steel should be kept to less than 0.25 mass ppm in order to avoid degradation of bendability of the steel (Yoshitomi, para [0055]).
Regarding claim 41, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to keep the diffusible hydrogen of the steel of Ichiba to less than 0.25 mass ppm as suggested by Yoshitomi. The motivation for doing so would be to avoid degradation of bendability of the steel (Yoshitomi, para [0055]).
Claim(s) 20, 21 and 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004131794A to Ishikawa (an English language machine translation has been relied upon as an English language equivalent) in view of “Metallurgical Design of Flat Rolled Steels” by Ginzburg.
Regarding claim 20, Ishikawa discloses a steel sheet production method comprising a sheet passing step of passing the steel strip, wherein the sheet passing step includes a vibration application step of applying vibration to the steel strip so that the steel strip is caused to vibrate at a frequency of 19-60 kHz and a maximum amplitude of 20 to 60 µm (within the claimed range of 10 nm to 500 µm) (Ishikawa, translation page 6).
The disclosed frequency of Ishikawa of 19-60 Hz is outside the claimed range of 100 Hz to 100,000 Hz. However, Ishikawa more broadly discloses that 19-60 Hz is only a preferred range and that the ultrasonic device is not particularly limited (Ishikawa, translation page 6). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. In the instant case, it would require little more than routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal or workable ranges of frequency that result in a workable or optimal dehydrogenation in the steel sheet production method of Ishikawa.
Ishikawa is silent as to a step of uncoiling a steel sheet coil to feed a steel strip.
Ginzburg discloses that coiling and uncoiling steel strip upstream of processing steps allows for the length of the production line to be reduced and steel strip production methods typically end in a downcoiler to produce a product coil (Ginzburg, pages 201-202, “7.7 Compact Strip Mills”, pages 208-214, Tables 7.12, 7.13, 7.14, 7.21).
Regarding claim 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coil and uncoil the sheet of Ishikawa upstream of the sheet passing step and end in a downcoiler as suggested by Ginzburg. The motivation for doing so would be to reduce the length of the production line and produce a product coil (Ginzburg, pages 201-202, “7.7 Compact Strip Mills”, pages 208-214, Tables 7.12, 7.13, 7.14, 7.21).
Regarding claim 21, the vibration application step of Ishikawa is performed while holding the steel strip at less 150 °C or lower (Ishikawa, translation page 6) within the instantly claimed range of 300 °C or less.
Regarding claim 38, Ishikawa alloy 5 has a TS of 696 MPa, within the instantly claimed range (Ishikawa, Table 2, Alloy 5)
Regarding claims 39 and 40, Ishikawa discloses an alloy comprising the following composition (Ishikawa, Table 1, Alloy 4) which lies within the instantly claimed composition as follows:
Element
Claimed wt%
Ishikawa wt%
Lies within?
C
0.030-0.800
0.04
Yes
Si
0.01-3.00
0.18
Yes
Mn
0.01-10.0
1.44
Yes
P
0.001-0.100
0.009
Yes
S
0.0001-0.0200
0.004
Yes
N
0.0005-0.0100
0.0046
Yes
Al
0-2.000
0.0122
Yes
Nb
0-0.200
0.03
Yes
Cu
0-1.000
0.15
Yes
Mo
0-1.000
0.3
Yes
Ti
0-0.200
0.015
Yes
Ni
0-1.000
0.0048
Yes
V
0-0.500
0.2
Yes
Cr
0-1.000
0.2
Yes
Fe
Balance
Balance
Yes
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004131794A to Ishikawa (an English language machine translation has been relied upon as an English language equivalent) in view of “Metallurgical Design of Flat Rolled Steels” by Ginzburg as applied to claims 20, 21 and 38-40 above and further in view of “Corrosion of Metallic Coated Steels” by Shastry.
Ishikawa in view of Ginzburg discloses a steel sheet production method as set forth above.
Ishikawa is silent as to a coating or plating step of forming a coating or plating on a surface of a hot-rolled steel sheet of Ishikawa.
Shastry discloses a metallic coating may be applied to a steel substrate for corrosion protection (Shastry, page 35, “Introduction”).
Regarding claim 37, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a metallic coating to the hot rolled steel sheet of Ishikawa in view of Ginsburg upstream of the coiling step. The motivation for doing so would be to provide corrosion protection (Shastry, “Introduction”).
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004131794A to Ishikawa (an English language machine translation has been relied upon as an English language equivalent) in view of “Metallurgical Design of Flat Rolled Steels” by Ginzburg as applied to claims 20, 21 and 38-40 above and further in view of EP 3754043 A1 to Yoshitomi et al.
Ishikawa in view of Ginzburg discloses a steel sheet production method as set forth above.
Ishikawa is silent as to diffusible hydrogen content of the product coil.
Yoshitomi discloses that the amount of diffusible hydrogen in steel should be kept to less than 0.25 mass ppm in order to avoid degradation of bendability of the steel (Yoshitomi, para [0055]).
Regarding claim 41, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to keep the diffusible hydrogen of the steel of Ishikawa to less than 0.25 mass ppm as suggested by Yoshitomi. The motivation for doing so would be to avoid degradation of bendability of the steel (Yoshitomi, para [0055]).
Claim(s) 20 and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 50098422 A to Nippon Steel Corp (an English language machine translation has been relied upon as an English language equivalent).
Regarding claim 20, Nippon Steel discloses steel sheet production method comprising a step of uncoiling a steel sheet coil to feed a steel strip; a sheet passing step of passing the steel strip; and a step of coiling the steel strip to obtain a product coil wherein the sheet passing step includes a vibration application step of applying vibration to the steel strip so that the steel strip is caused to vibrate at a frequency of 10-100 kHz (within the claimed range of 100 Hz to 100,000 Hz) and a maximum strain amplitude of 5x10-4 (Nippon Steel, translation pages 3 and 4).
Nippon Steel discloses a maximum strain amplitude instead of a maximum amplitude. However, the maximum strain amplitude is directly dependent on the maximum amplitude. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. In the instant case, it would require little more than routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal or workable ranges of maximum amplitude that result in a workable or optimal maximum strain amplitude in the steel sheet production method of Nippon Steel.
Regarding claims 39, Nippon Steel discloses an alloy comprising the following composition (Nippon Steel, Table 1, Alloy A) which lies within the instantly claimed composition as follows:
Element
Claimed wt%
Nippon Steel A wt%
Lies within?
C
0.030-0.800
0.043
Yes
Si
0.01-3.00
0.015
Yes
Mn
0.01-10.0
0.20
Yes
P
0.001-0.100
0.006
Yes
S
0.0001-0.0200
0.005
Yes
N
0.0005-0.0100
0.0042
Yes
Al
0-2.000
0.058
Yes
Fe
Balance
Balance
Yes
Regarding claim 40, none of the instantly claimed elements recite a lower compositional limit. Nippon Steel does not deliberately add any of the instantly claimed elements, so the instantly claimed elements would either be absent from the steel of Nippon Steel or would be present in no more than impurity amounts, either way within the instantly claimed ranges.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S5098422 to Nippon Steel Corp (an English language machine translation has been relied upon as an English language equivalent) as applied to claims 20 and 39-40 above and further in view of “Corrosion of Metallic Coated Steels” by Shastry.
Nippon Steel discloses a steel sheet production method as set forth above.
Nippon Steel is silent as to a coating or plating step of forming a coating or plating on a surface of a hot-rolled steel sheet of Ishikawa.
Shastry discloses a metallic coating may be applied to a steel substrate for corrosion protection (Shastry, page 35, “Introduction”).
Regarding claim 37, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a metallic coating to the hot rolled steel sheet of Nippon Steel upstream of the coiling step. The motivation for doing so would be to provide corrosion protection (Shastry, “Introduction”).
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S5098422 to Nippon Steel Corp (an English language machine translation has been relied upon as an English language equivalent) as applied to claims 20 and 39-40 above and further in view of EP 3754043 A1 to Yoshitomi et al.
Nippon Steel discloses a steel sheet production method as set forth above.
Nippon Steel is silent as to diffusible hydrogen content of the product coil.
Yoshitomi discloses that the amount of diffusible hydrogen in steel should be kept to less than 0.25 mass ppm in order to avoid degradation of bendability of the steel (Yoshitomi, para [0055]).
Regarding claim 41, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to keep the diffusible hydrogen of the steel of Nippon Steel to less than 0.25 mass ppm as suggested by Yoshitomi. The motivation for doing so would be to avoid degradation of bendability of the steel (Yoshitomi, para [0055]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN D WALCK whose telephone number is (571)270-5905. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 AM - 6:30 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
/BRIAN D WALCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights