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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 13 May 2024 and 15 April 2025 were considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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.
Claims 1-12 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.
The term “about” in claims 1-4 and 6-12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is 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. Claims 1-4 and 6-12 all use the term “about” in reference to several numerical limitations. For example, claim 1 claims an alloy comprising between from about 0.05 to about 0.35 wt% carbon. It is unclear if this claim would encompass values around the range of 0.05 to 0.35 or if it would only encompass values within this range. All other uses of the term about in claims 1-4 and 6-12 are also unclear for the same reason. Claim 5 is also rejected as it depends on claim 1 and does not solve the above issues.
The term “optionally” in claims 1 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “optionally” is 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. The term optionally is recited in claims 1 and 9 before the compositional ranges of niobium and yttrium/cerium. It is unclear if the claim would be satisfied only if the niobium and yttrium/cerium are included in the recited ranges or if it would be satisfied for alloys that do not contain these elements in the recited ranges. Claims 2-8 and 10-12 are also rejected as they depend on claims 1 and 9 and do not solve the above issues.
Claim 8 claims that the part has a hardness above about 400 and 560 HV. It is unclear if the claim would be satisfied if the hardness was above 400 HV but not above 560 HV, or if the claim would only be satisfied if the hardness was above 560 HV. The specification does not provide clarity and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “at least one transition zone between adjacent areas the blank of different thickness areas of the blank with a length less than 80 times the difference in thickness between the areas, but greater than 10 times the difference in thickness between the areas”. It is unclear what applicant is referring to by “adjacent areas the blank of different thickness areas of the blank”. The specification does not provide clarity and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim. Claim 10-12 are also rejected as they depend on claim 9 and do not solve the above issues.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019127240 of Lu in view of DE19982874 of Muraki, further in view of WO2024033721 of Philippot and KR20230094666 (machine translation) of Park.
Claim 1 claims a tailor-rolled blank for use in hot stamping automotive parts, the blank made from an alloy comprising between from about 0.05 to about 0.35 wt% carbon, about 0.5 to about 5.0 wt% manganese, about 0.5 to about 2.0 wt% silicon, about 0.6 to about 4.0 wt% chromium, optionally about 0.02-0.05 wt% niobium, and optionally about 0.03 to about 0.3 wt% yttrium and/or cerium, and the balance being iron and impurities, the tailor-rolled blank being cold rolled to have one or more of these geometrical features: a maximum thickness difference between the thinnest area of the blank and the thickest area of the blank greater than about 0.8 mm and less than about 2.0 mm; a maximum ratio of the thickest area of the blank to the thinnest area of the blank greater than about 1.2 and less than about 2.5; and at least one transition zone between adjacent areas the blank of different thickness with a length that is less than 80 times the difference in thickness between the areas, but greater than 10 times the difference in thickness between the areas.
Lu discloses a steel for hot stamping with enhanced oxidation resistance in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Lu teaches an alloy composition including chromium (Cr) at a concentration of greater than or equal to about 0.5 wt. %to less than or equal to about 9 wt. %; carbon (C) at a concentration of greater than or equal to about 0.15 wt. %to less than or equal to about 0.5 wt. %; manganese (Mn) at a concentration of greater than or equal to about 0 wt. %to less than or equal to about 3 wt. %; silicon (Si) at a concentration of greater than or equal to about 0.5 wt. %to less than or equal to about 2 wt. %; and a balance of the alloy composition being iron, Para[0006]. Lu also teaches niobium (Nb) at a concentration of greater than or equal to about 0 wt. %to less than or equal to about 0.5 wt. %, Para[0011]. These ranges overlap with the claimed ranges for each respective element. 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. Lu does not teach yttrium or cerium, a maximum thickness difference, a maximum ratio of the thickest area to the thinnest area of the blank, or at least one transition zone.
Muraki teaches an electric-welded boiler steel pipe in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Muraki teaches yttrium and cerium in a range of 0.001 to 0.2%, Para[0034]. This overlaps with the claimed range. 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. Muraki teaches that when at least one of these elements is added in the amount of at least 0.001%, the above-described impurities may be bound as stable and harmless precipitates, and strength and toughness may be improved. If the addition amount is less than 0.001%, the effect cannot be obtained, and if the amount exceeds 0.2%, the amount of inclusion increases, and toughness deteriorates, Para[0034]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use yttrium and/or cerium in the amount taught by Muraki to the alloy disclosed by Lu in order to improve strength and toughness.
Philippot discloses a crack-containing hot-stamped coated steel part with excellent spot-weldability and excellent painting adhesion in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Philippot teaches that the average thickness of the hot-stamped coated steel part is within the range of 0.7 mm to 3.0 mm. In an embodiment, the hot-stamped coated steel part has a uniform thickness from 0.6 mm to 3.5 mm, preferably from 0.7 mm to 3.0 mm. In another embodiment, the hot-stamped coated steel part has a variable thickness (thus non-uniform). In that case, the hot-stamped coated steel part consists of two or more regions with different uniform thicknesses which are preferably each from 0.6 mm to 3.5 mm, preferably from 0.7 mm to 3.0 mm, Pg[2]. This would result in a maximum thickness difference ranging from 0 to 2.9 mm, and a maximum ratio of the thickest area to the thinnest area of the blank ranging from 0 to 5.8. This overlaps with the claimed ranges of 0.8 – 2.0 mm and 1.2 – 2.5, respectively. 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. Philippot teaches that the present invention also relates to a method for manufacturing a hot-stamped coated steel part. Such parts can also be used for example in the automobile industry, for the fabrication of structural elements for anti-intrusion or energy absorption functions. In such type of applications, it is desirable to have steel parts that combine high mechanical strength, high impact resistance, good corrosion resistance and dimensional accuracy, Pg[1]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the thickness parameters of the thick and thin areas as taught by Philippot in the alloy disclosed by Lu in order to achieve high mechanical strength, high impact resistance, good corrosion resistance and dimensional accuracy.
Park discloses high strength and high formability cold rolled steel sheet having different thickness and method of manufacturing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Park teaches that one embodiment of the present invention is a cold-rolled steel sheet having a thick portion and a thin portion, wherein a transition zone between the thick portion and the thin portion is 200 mm or less, Para[0018]. Park teaches that it is possible to provide a high-strength, high-formability cold-rolled steel sheet having different thicknesses and a manufacturing method thereof, Para[0022]. Considering the thickness difference taught by Philippot in the context of instant claim 1, a maximum length of the transition zone (corresponding to the max difference between the thick and thin zone of 2.9 mm multiplied by 80 times) would be 232 mm and a minimum length of the transition zone (corresponding to the max difference between the thick and thin zone of 2.9 mm multiplied by 10 times) would be 29 mm. Therefore, the range of 200 mm or less taught by Park, considered along with the teachings of Philippot, would overlap with the claimed range for the length of the transition zone (29 to 232 mm). 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. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to limit the length of the transition zone to the range disclosed by Park, considering the maximum difference between the thickness of the thickest area and thinnest area as taught by Philippot, in the alloy disclosed by Lu in order to provide a high-strength, high-formability cold-rolled steel sheet having different thicknesses and a manufacturing method thereof.
Thus, Lu, Muraki, Philippot, and Park cover all limitations of claim 1.
Claim 2 further limits claim 1 by claiming about 0.02 to 0.05 wt% niobium.
Lu teaches niobium (Nb) at a concentration of greater than or equal to about 0 wt. %to less than or equal to about 0.5 wt. %, Para[0011]. This range overlap with the claimed range for niobium. 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. Thus, Lu teaches the additional limitation of claim 2. Therefore, Lu, Muraki, Philippot, and Park cover all limitations of claim 2.
Claim 3 further limits claim 2 by claiming about 0.03 to about 0.3 wt% yttrium and/or cerium.
Lu does not teach yttrium or cerium.
Muraki teaches yttrium and cerium in a range of 0.001 to 0.2%, Para[0034]. This overlaps with the claimed range. 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. Muraki teaches that when at least one of these elements is added in the amount of at least 0.001%, the above-described impurities may be bound as stable and harmless precipitates, and strength and toughness may be improved. If the addition amount is less than 0.001%, the effect cannot be obtained, and if the amount exceeds 0.2%, the amount of inclusion increases, and toughness deteriorates, Para[0034]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use yttrium and/or cerium in the amount taught by Muraki to the alloy disclosed by Lu in order to improve strength and toughness. Thus Lu, Muraki, Philippot, and Park cover all limitations of claim 3.
Claim 4 further limits claim 1 by claiming about 0.03 to about 0.3 wt% yttrium and/or cerium.
Lu does not teach yttrium or cerium.
Muraki teaches yttrium and cerium in a range of 0.001 to 0.2%, Para[0034]. This overlaps with the claimed range. 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. Muraki teaches that when at least one of these elements is added in the amount of at least 0.001%, the above-described impurities may be bound as stable and harmless precipitates, and strength and toughness may be improved. If the addition amount is less than 0.001%, the effect cannot be obtained, and if the amount exceeds 0.2%, the amount of inclusion increases, and toughness deteriorates, Para[0034]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use yttrium and/or cerium in the amount taught by Muraki to the alloy disclosed by Lu in order to improve strength and toughness. Thus, Lu, Muraki, Philippot, and Park cover all limitations of claim 4.
Claim 5 further limits claim 1 by claiming a structural part for an automobile, made by hot stamping a tailor-rolled blank according to claim 1.
Lu teaches structural parts for automobiles made by hot-stamping, Para[0002]. Therefore, Lu discloses the additional limitation of claim 5. Thus, Lu, Muraki, Philippot, and Park cover all limitations of claim 5.
Claim 6 further limits claim 5 by claiming that the part has an ultimate tensile strength greater than about 1500 MPa.
Lu teaches that Hardened steel made from the alloy composition has an ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of greater than or equal to about 1200 MPa, such as a UTS of about 1200 MPa, about 1250 MPa, about 1300 MPa, about 1350 MPa, about 1400 MPa, about 1450 MPa, about 1500 MPa, about 1550 MPa, about 1600 MPa, about 1650 MPa, about 1700 MPa, about 1750 MPa, about 1800 MPa, about 1850 MPa, about 1900 MPa, about 1950 MPa, about 2000 MPa, or greater, Para[0086]. This overlaps with the claimed range. 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. Therefore, Lu discloses the additional limitation of claim 5. Thus, Lu, Muraki, Philippot, and Park cover all limitations of claim 6.
Claim 9 claims a method of manufacturing a structural part for an automobile comprising: forming a tailor-rolled blank for use in hot stamping automotive parts, by cold rolling a blank made from an alloy comprising between from about 0.05 to about 0.35 wt% carbon, about 0.5 to about 5.0 wt% manganese, about 0.5 to about 2.0 wt% silicon, about 0.6 to about 4.0 wt% chromium, optionally about 0.02-0.05 wt% niobium, and optionally about 0.03 to about 0.3 wt% yttrium and/or cerium, the tailor-rolled blank being cold rolled to have one or more of these geometrical features: (a) a maximum thickness difference between the thinnest area of the blank and the thickest area of the blank greater than about 0.8 mm and less than about 2.0 mm; (b) a maximum ratio of the thickest area of the blank to the thinnest area of the blank greater than about 1.2 and less than about 2.5; and (c) at least one transition zone between adjacent areas the blank of different thickness areas of the blank with a length less than 80 times the difference in thickness between the areas, but greater than 10 times the difference in thickness between the areas; and hot stamping the tailor-rolled blank to form the structural part for an automobile.
Lu discloses a steel for hot stamping with enhanced oxidation resistance in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Lu teaches an alloy composition including chromium (Cr) at a concentration of greater than or equal to about 0.5 wt. %to less than or equal to about 9 wt. %; carbon (C) at a concentration of greater than or equal to about 0.15 wt. %to less than or equal to about 0.5 wt. %; manganese (Mn) at a concentration of greater than or equal to about 0 wt. %to less than or equal to about 3 wt. %; silicon (Si) at a concentration of greater than or equal to about 0.5 wt. %to less than or equal to about 2 wt. %; and a balance of the alloy composition being iron, Para[0006]. Lu also teaches niobium (Nb) at a concentration of greater than or equal to about 0 wt. %to less than or equal to about 0.5 wt. %, Para[0011]. These ranges overlap with the claimed ranges for each respective element. 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. Lu does not teach yttrium or cerium, a maximum thickness difference, a maximum ratio of the thickest area to the thinnest area of the blank, or at least one transition zone.
Muraki teaches an electric-welded boiler steel pipe in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Muraki teaches yttrium and cerium in a range of 0.001 to 0.2%, Para[0034]. This overlaps with the claimed range. 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. Muraki teaches that when at least one of these elements is added in the amount of at least 0.001%, the above-described impurities may be bound as stable and harmless precipitates, and strength and toughness may be improved. If the addition amount is less than 0.001%, the effect cannot be obtained, and if the amount exceeds 0.2%, the amount of inclusion increases, and toughness deteriorates, Para[0034]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use yttrium and/or cerium in the amount taught by Muraki to the alloy disclosed by Lu in order to improve strength and toughness.
Philippot discloses a crack-containing hot-stamped coated steel part with excellent spot-weldability and excellent painting adhesion in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Philippot teaches that the average thickness of the hot-stamped coated steel part is within the range of 0.7 mm to 3.0 mm. In an embodiment, the hot-stamped coated steel part has a uniform thickness from 0.6 mm to 3.5 mm, preferably from 0.7 mm to 3.0 mm. In another embodiment, the hot-stamped coated steel part has a variable thickness (thus non-uniform). In that case, the hot-stamped coated steel part consists of two or more regions with different uniform thicknesses which are preferably each from 0.6 mm to 3.5 mm, preferably from 0.7 mm to 3.0 mm, Pg[2]. This would result in a maximum thickness difference ranging from 0 to 2.9 mm, and a maximum ratio of the thickest area to the thinnest area of the blank ranging from 0 to 5.8. This overlaps with the claimed ranges of 0.8 – 2.0 mm and 1.2 – 2.5, respectively. 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. Philippot teaches that the present invention also relates to a method for manufacturing a hot-stamped coated steel part. Such parts can also be used for example in the automobile industry, for the fabrication of structural elements for anti-intrusion or energy absorption functions. In such type of applications, it is desirable to have steel parts that combine high mechanical strength, high impact resistance, good corrosion resistance and dimensional accuracy, Pg[1]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the thickness parameters of the thick and thin areas as taught by Philippot in the alloy disclosed by Lu in order to achieve high mechanical strength, high impact resistance, good corrosion resistance and dimensional accuracy.
Park discloses high strength and high formability cold rolled steel sheet having different thickness and method of manufacturing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Park teaches that one embodiment of the present invention is a cold-rolled steel sheet having a thick portion and a thin portion, wherein a transition zone between the thick portion and the thin portion is 200 mm or less, Para[0018]. Park teaches that it is possible to provide a high-strength, high-formability cold-rolled steel sheet having different thicknesses and a manufacturing method thereof, Para[0022]. Considering the thickness difference taught by Philippot in the context of instant claim 9, a maximum length of the transition zone (corresponding to the max difference between the thick and thin zone of 2.9 mm multiplied by 80 times) would be 232 mm and a minimum length of the transition zone (corresponding to the max difference between the thick and thin zone of 2.9 mm multiplied by 10 times) would be 29 mm. Therefore, the range of 200 mm or less taught by Park, considered along with the teachings of Philippot, would overlap with the claimed range for the length of the transition zone. 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. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to limit the length of the transition zone to the range disclosed by Park, considering the maximum difference between the thickness of the thickest area and thinnest area as taught by Philippot, in the alloy disclosed by Lu in order to provide a high-strength, high-formability cold-rolled steel sheet having different thicknesses and a manufacturing method thereof.
Thus, Lu, Muraki, Philippot, and Park cover all limitations of claim 9.
Claim 10 further limits claim 9 by claiming that the blank is made from an alloy comprising about 0.02-0.05 wt% niobium.
Lu teaches niobium (Nb) at a concentration of greater than or equal to about 0 wt. %to less than or equal to about 0.5 wt. %, Para[0011]. This range overlap with the claimed range for niobium. 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. Thus, Lu teaches the additional limitation of claim 10. Therefore, Lu, Muraki, Philippot, and Park cover all limitations of claim 10.
Claim 11 further limits claim 10 by claiming that the blank is made from an alloy comprising about 0.03 to about 0.3 wt% yttrium and/or cerium.
Lu does not teach yttrium or cerium.
Muraki teaches yttrium and cerium in a range of 0.001 to 0.2%, Para[0034]. This overlaps with the claimed range. 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. Muraki teaches that when at least one of these elements is added in the amount of at least 0.001%, the above-described impurities may be bound as stable and harmless precipitates, and strength and toughness may be improved. If the addition amount is less than 0.001%, the effect cannot be obtained, and if the amount exceeds 0.2%, the amount of inclusion increases, and toughness deteriorates, Para[0034]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use yttrium and/or cerium in the amount taught by Muraki to the alloy disclosed by Lu in order to improve strength and toughness. Thus Lu, Muraki, Philippot, and Park cover all limitations of claim 11.
Claim 12 further limits claim 9 by claiming that the blank is made from an alloy comprising about 0.03 to about 0.3 wt% yttrium and/or cerium.
Lu does not teach yttrium or cerium.
Muraki teaches yttrium and cerium in a range of 0.001 to 0.2%, Para[0034]. This overlaps with the claimed range. 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. Muraki teaches that when at least one of these elements is added in the amount of at least 0.001%, the above-described impurities may be bound as stable and harmless precipitates, and strength and toughness may be improved. If the addition amount is less than 0.001%, the effect cannot be obtained, and if the amount exceeds 0.2%, the amount of inclusion increases, and toughness deteriorates, Para[0034]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use yttrium and/or cerium in the amount taught by Muraki to the alloy disclosed by Lu in order to improve strength and toughness. Thus Lu, Muraki, Philippot, and Park cover all limitations of claim 12.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019127240 of Lu in view of DE19982874 of Muraki, WO2024033721 of Philippot, and KR20230094666 (machine translation) of Park, as cited above, further in view of CA3236953 of Herry.
Claim 7 further limits claim 6 by claiming a hardness between about 400 and 560 HV.
Lu does not teach hardness.
Herry teaches a method for producing a steel sheet having excellent processability before hot forming, steel sheet, process to manufacture a hot stamped part and hot stamped part in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Herry discloses that the hot stamped part has a hardness above 400Hv, even more preferably above 440Hv, Para[0015]. This overlaps with the claimed range. 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. Herry teaches that the present invention relates to steel sheets and to high strength press hardened steel parts having excellent processability before hot forming, Para[0001]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the structural part of Lu with a hardness taught by Herry in order to make a steel part with excellent processability before hot forming. Thus, Lu, Muraki, Philippot, Park, and Herry cover all limitations of claim 7.
Claim 8 further limits claim 5 by claiming a hardness above about 400 and 560 HV.
Lu does not teach hardness.
Herry teaches a method for producing a steel sheet having excellent processability before hot forming, steel sheet, process to manufacture a hot stamped part and hot stamped part in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Herry discloses that the hot stamped part has a hardness above 400Hv, even more preferably above 440Hv, Para[0015]. This overlaps with the claimed range. 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. Herry teaches that the present invention relates to steel sheets and to high strength press hardened steel parts having excellent processability before hot forming, Para[0001]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the structural part of Lu with a hardness taught by Herry in order to make a steel part with excellent processability before hot forming. Thus, Lu, Muraki, Philippot, Park, and Herry cover all limitations of claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights