DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 8/4/26 has been entered. Claims 11-26 remain pending in the application. Claim(s) 15-26 have been withdrawn. Claim(s) 1-10 have been canceled. Applicant's arguments have overcome the 112(d) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 6/12/26.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/9/26 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parenthesis. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. (US 20230183834 A1).
Regarding claims 11-12, Takeda teaches “a steel sheet high in strength and excellent in weldability and a method for producing the same” (which reads upon “a steel sheet having a chemical composition comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0001]). Takeda teaches that “steel sheet having a chemical composition comprising, by mass %” (paragraphs [0012]-[0041]).
Element
Claim 11
US 20230183834 A1
C
0.15 - 0.45
0.20 to 0.40%
Si
1.5 or less
0.01 to 1.00%
Mn
1.7 or less
0.10 to 4.00%
P
0.03 or less
0.0200% or less
S
less than 0.0020
0.0200% or less
sol. Al
0.20 or less
1.000% or less
N
0.005 or less
0.0200% or less
B
0.0015 – 0.0100
0 to 0.0100%
Nb
Ti and/or Nb: 0.005-0.080
0 to 0.5000%
Ti
Ti and/or Nb: 0.005-0.080
0 to 0.500%
Fe & incidental
balance
balance
impurities
Element
Claim 12
US 20230183834 A1
A: Cu
1.0 or less
0 to 0.5000
A: Ni
1.0 or less
0 to 1.0000%
B: Cr
1.0 or less
0 to 2.0000%
B: Mo
0.3 or less
0 to 1.0000%
B: V
0.5 or less
0 to 0.5000%
B: Zr
0.2 or less
0 to 0.0500%
B: W
0.2 or less
0 to 0.1000%
C: Ca
0.0030 or less
0 to 0.0500%
C: Ce
0.0030 or less
0 to 0.0500%
C: La
0.0030 or less
0 to 0.0500%
C: REM
0.0030 or less
--
C: Mg
0.0030 or less
0.0001 to 0.0500%
D: Sb
0.10 or less
0.0001 to 0.0500%
D: Sn
0.10 or less
0.0001 to 0.0500%
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. Takeda teaches that “the total of martensite and tempered martensite is an area ratio of 80.0% or more and may be 85.0% or more, 90.0% or more, 95.0% or more, or 100.0%” (which reads upon “wherein the steel sheet has a microstructure in which the area fraction of martensite with respect to the total area of the microstructure is 95% or more and 100% or less, wherein prior austenite grains have an average grain diameter of less than 11.0 µm”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0150]; if no austenite remains, it cannot have a grain size). Takeda teaches that “the tensile strength of the steel sheet is preferably 1280 MPa or more, more preferably 1350 MPa or more or 1400 MPa or more, most preferably 1500 MPa or more” (which reads upon “wherein the steel sheet has a tensile strength of 1470 MPa or more”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0156]).
Takeda is silent regarding wherein the number density A of precipitates having an equivalent circular diameter of 500 nm or more satisfies formula (1) below: A (particles / mm2) s 8.5 x 105 x [B] formula (1) where [B] represents the content of B (% by mass).
The instant specification teaches that “the inventors of the present invention have found that, when the hot-rolling conditions are controlled to reduce the number density A of precipitates having an equivalent circular diameter of 500 nm or more so that the following condition is satisfied, the improvement in the delayed fracture resistance through grain boundary strengthening by B and prevention of fracture starting from the precipitates can be achieved simultaneously” (paragraph [0047]). The instant specification teaches that “in the hot finish rolling, the finish rolling temperature (FT) is set to 850°C or higher in order to reduce the precipitation of Nb, Ti, B, etc.” (paragraph [0059]). The instant specification teaches that “the finish rolling temperature is preferably 930°C or lower” (paragraph [0059]).
Takeda teaches that “the end temperature of the finish rolling in the hot rolling was 890° C” (paragraph [0192]).
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. Therefore, it is expected that the steel of the prior art possesses the properties as claimed in the instant claims since a) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in composition (see compositional analysis above), b) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure (see microstructure analysis above), and c) the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes (see processing analysis above). Since the Office does not have a laboratory to test the reference alloy, it is applicant’s burden to show that the reference alloy does not possess the properties as claimed in the instant claims. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 13-14, Takeda teaches the sheet of claims 11-12 as stated above. Takeda teaches that “due to the hot dip galvanization step, at least one surface, preferably both surfaces, of the cold rolled steel sheet are formed with a hot dip galvanized layer” (paragraph [0183]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takashima et al. (US 20170022582 A1). Takashima teaches a steel with overlapping compositional ranges and a tensile strength of 1470 MPa or more (Table 3). Ueda et al. (US 20140090755 A1). Ueda teaches a steel sheet with overlapping compositional ranges and an average grain size of tempered martensite of 15 μm or less in terms of equivalent circle diameter.
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 REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q1: 1/4-1/8/27.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights