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 1-3, 6-8, 11 and 12 in the reply filed on 5/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4, 5, 9 and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 5/14/2026.
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 1-3, 6-8, 11 and 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.
Instant claim 1 recites the limitation “the total area ratio of martensite and bainite is 95 % or more,” as well as “a C-concentrated region is provided along a martensitic grain boundary, the C concentration in the C-concentrated region is 4.0 times or more than the C content in the steel, and the C-concentrated region has a concentration width of 3 nm or more and 100 nm or less in a direction perpendicular to the martensitic grain boundary and a length of 100 nm or more in a direction parallel to the martensitic grain boundary.” These limitations when viewed together are indefinite because the limitation “the total area ratio of martensite and bainite is 95 % or more,” allows for microstructures that contain 95% or more bainite while containing no martensite, whereas the limitation “a C-concentrated region is provided along a martensitic grain boundary, the C concentration in the C-concentrated region is 4.0 times or more than the C content in the steel, and the C-concentrated region has a concentration width of 3 nm or more and 100 nm or less in a direction perpendicular to the martensitic grain boundary and a length of 100 nm or more in a direction parallel to the martensitic grain boundary,” implies that martensite is necessarily present in the microstructure. Thus, it is unclear if martensite is required to be present in the instantly claimed microstructure or if the instant claims allow for martensite free microstructures so long as bainite is present in an area ratio of 95% or more, which renders the scope of claim 1 indefinite.
Instant claims 2, 3, 6-8, 11 and 12 depend on instant claim 1 and are indefinite for at least the same reasons.
Additionally, the term “high strength” in claims 1-3, 6-8, 11 and 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high strength” 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. This renders the strength of the steel indefinite which renders the scope of the claims indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Instant claims 1-3, 6-8, 11 and 12 are directed to a high strength steel sheet as set forth in the instant claims. The closest prior art of record is US 2021/0017622 (A1) to Haga et al. Haga discloses a hot dip galvanized steel sheet comprising C, Si, Mn, P, S, Al, N, Ti, Nb, and B in amounts that overlap or encompass the claimed ranges (Haga, para [0039-0083]). The amount of C (carbon) in retained austenite is 0.85% by mass or more (Haga, para [0101-0104]). The retained austenite and tempered martensite in the steel are each over 5.0% by volume (Haga, para [0084-0100]). he relative ratio of segregated C (in grain boundary of retained austenite) to segregated P (in grain boundary of retained austenite) is 4.0 or more (Haga, para [0105-0108]). The relative ratio of segregated B (in grain boundary of retained austenite) to segregated P (in grain boundary of retained austenite) is 4.0 or more (Haga, para [0111-0114]). Because the retained austenite must exceed 5 vol.%, it follows that the sum of any remaining phase is at most less than 95%, falling outside the claimed range. Thus, a sum of martensitic and bainitic phase cannot be 95% or more. Furthermore, the method of manufacture in Haga differs from the method of manufacture disclosed in the instant specification and in the claims in that Haga carries out a single annealing step (Haga, para [0145-0155]), whereas the claimed method is recites a first and second heating at different temperatures with a hold in between. Therefore, Haga does not teach or suggest the steel sheet as claimed or the disclosed method of manufacture.
US 2019/0194775 A1 to Ono et al is also relevant to the instant claims. Ono disclose a steel sheet with a composition overlapping the instantly claimed composition with a total amount of microstructure and bainite being 90 to 100% and prior austenite grains having an average size of 6 to 15 µm (Ono, abstract, para [0025-0043]). Ono does not teach or suggest the instantly claimed limitations of “ a C-concentrated region is provided along a martensitic grain boundary, the C concentration in the C-concentrated region is 4.0 times or more than the C content in the steel, and the C-concentrated region has a concentration width of 3 nm or more and 100 nm or less in a direction perpendicular to the martensitic grain boundary and a length of 100 nm or more in a direction parallel to the martensitic grain boundary.”
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