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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 1/17/24, 10/11/24, and 2/09/26 have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 6/9/26.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 12-15 in the reply filed on 6/9/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13 depends upon claim 12. Claim 12 fully specifies the composition of the steel (“with the balance being Fe and incidental impurities”). Claim 13 changes the fully specified composition of the steel. Accordingly, claim 13 fails to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends (“with the balance being Fe and incidental impurities”). Claim 15 is rejected due to its dependence on rejected claim 13. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi et al. (US 2016/0053355 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Takagi teaches a steel material, such as steel sheet, that includes the following elements in percent by mass (abstract; para. [0002], [0025], [0071]-[0105]):
Element
Claim 12
US 2016/0053355 A1
C
0.15 - 0.45
0.05 - 0.60
Si
1.5 or less
0.01 - 2.0
Mn
More than 1.7
0.3 - 3.0
P
0.03 or less
0.001 - 0.040
S
less than 0.0040
0.0001 - 0.010
sol. Al
0.20 or less
0.01 - 1.5
N
0.005 or less
0.0001 - 0.0060
B
0.0015 – 0.0100
0.0001 - 0.01
Nb
Ti and/or Nb: 0.005-0.080
Nb: 0.01 - 0.20
Ti
Ti and/or Nb: 0.005-0.080
Ti: 0.01 - 0.20
Fe & incidental
balance
balance
impurities
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. Takagi teaches “a steel microstructure that includes 95% or more of tempered martensite on a volume fraction basis” (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”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0027]). Takagi teaches “prior austenite having a grain diameter of 3 μm or more” (which reads upon “wherein prior austenite grains have an average grain diameter of less than 11.2 μm”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0029]; overlapping ranges). Takagi teaches that 17 of the 24 samples in Table 2 (L1 to L24) have prior austenite grain diameters of less than 11.2 μm (Table 2). Takagi teaches that “Boron (B), molybdenum (Mo), and chromium (Cr) may be added to a steel in order to increase ease of hardening performed subsequent to annealing and thereby achieve a high TS” (paragraph [0088]). Takagi teaches that “the contents of B, Mo, and Cr are preferably B: 0.0015% or more” (which reads upon “B: 0.0015% or more”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0088]). Takagi teaches that “the contents of B, Mo, and Cr are set to B: 0.01% or less” (which reads upon “and 0.0100% or less”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0088]). Takagi teaches “a precipitate having a diameter of 100 nm or less and including one or more elements selected from Ti, Nb, and V and one or more elements selected from carbon and nitrogen at a density of 50 particles/μm2 or more” (which reads upon “wherein the number density A of precipitates having an equivalent circular diameter of 500 nm or more satisfies formula (1) below: A (particles / mm2)< 8.5 x 105 x [B] formula (1) where [B] represents the content of B (% by mass)”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0028]). Takagi teaches that “if the diameter of the precipitate exceeds 100 nm, fatigue cracking is likely to occur and the reduction in fatigue crack propagation in a hydrogen atmosphere may be limited” (paragraph [0112]). Because Takagi teaches that diameter of the precipitates is less than 100 nm, the number of precipitates having an equivalent circular diameter of 500 nm or more is zero, or very close to zero, and thus will be less than 8.5 x 105 x [B] formula (1) where [B] represents the content of B (% by mass).
Regarding claim 13, Takagi teaches the sheet of claim 12 as stated above.
Group A: Takagi teaches “Cu: 0.005% to 2.00%” (paragraph [0092]; overlapping ranges). Takagi teaches “Ni: 0.005% to 0.70%” (paragraph [0090]).
Group B: Takagi teaches “Cr: 0.005% to 3.0%” (paragraph [0025]; overlapping ranges). Takagi teaches “Mo: 0.005% to 2.0%” (paragraph [0025]; overlapping ranges). Takagi teaches “V: 0.01% or More and Less Than 0.05%” (paragraph [0085]). Takagi teaches “W: 0.001% to 1%” (paragraph [00]; overlapping ranges).
Group C: Takagi teaches “Ca: 0.001% to 0.01%” (paragraph [0094]; overlapping ranges). Takagi teaches “REM: 0.001% to 0.01%” (paragraph [0033]; overlapping ranges). Takagi teaches “Mg: 0.001% to 0.01%” (paragraph [0098]; overlapping ranges).
Group D: Takagi teaches “Sb: 0.0001% to 0.1%” (paragraph [0102]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi et al. (US 2016/0053355 A1), as applied to claims 12-13 above, and further in view of Nakano et al. (US 20220267874 A1).
Regarding claims 13-14, Takagi teaches the steel sheets of claims 11-12 as stated above.
Takagi is silent regarding wherein the steel sheet comprises a coated layer on a surface thereof.
Nakano is similarly concerned with a steel sheet (paragraph [0001]). Nakano teaches a steel sheet with a composition which overlaps with claims 11 and 12 (paragraphs [0026]-[0055]). Nakano teaches that “wherein the steel sheet has a micro-structure containing, in volume fraction, tempered martensite: 95% or more, and one or more kinds of ferrite, pearlite, bainite, as-quenched martensite, and retained austenite: less than 5% in total” (paragraph [0022]). Nakano teaches that “the steel sheet according to the present embodiment may include a plating layer on its surface, and that the plating layer may be any one of, for example, a galvanized layer, a galvannealed layer, and an electrogalvanized layer” (which reads upon “wherein the steel sheet comprises a coated layer on a surface thereof”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0142]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steel sheet of Takagi by applying a galvanized layer, as taught by Nakano to protect it from corrosion, extend its lifespan, and reduce maintenance costs. It is well known in the steel arts to apply a galvanizing layer.
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. Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
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