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 Group I (Claims 1-5) in the reply filed on 06/24/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 6-9 are withdrawn. Claims 1-5 are examined herein.
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 1-5 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 terms “ultra-high” and “excellent” in claims 1-5 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “ultra-high” and “excellent” in claims 1-5 are 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. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “(excluding 0%)” in line 3-7. Since “excluding 0%” is within parenthesis, it’s unclear whether “(excluding 0%)” should treated as positive limitations. Please remove the parenthesis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “a microstructure comprises a single-phase structure” in line 8. “comprises” is an open-ended transitional phrase that does not exclude other phrases. Thus, it’s unclear whether the structure is a single -phase structure or other phrases may be present besides the single-phase structure. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites “a value of tensile strength (TS) (MPa) and hole expansion rate (HER)(%) of 73500MPa% or more”. It’s unclear how the value is calculated based on TS and HER. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh (US 2022/0205059), as evidenced by Uchikoshi (Metallurgical and Materials Transaction B, Vol 40B, 2009, Page 615-618).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Noh teaches a cold-rolled steel sheet containing C: 0.223%, Si: 0.204%, Mn: 1.21%, P: 0.02%, S: 0.0012%, Al: 0.012%, Ti: 0.048%, B: 0.0019%, N: 0.006% or less, with a remainder of Fe and impurities (Abstract; Table 1, Prep. Ex. 2), which meets the recited amount of C, Si, Mn, P, S, Al, B and Ti in claim 1. As evidenced by Uchikoshi, even high purity iron with purity greater than 99.99 wt% contains 0.007-0.27 ppm Cr, 0.045-0.48 ppm Mo, 0.058-1.5 ppm Ni and 0.25-0.75 ppm Cu (Table 1). Thus, Prep. Ex. 2 of Noh contains trace amounts of Cr, Mo, Ni and Cu that meets the recited amount of Cr and Mo in claim 1 and the recited amount of Cu and Ni in claim 2. Noh discloses that 0-0.05 wt.% Nb improves strength and toughness ([0048]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add 0-0.05 wt.% Nb in Prep. Ex. 2 of Noh in order to improve strength and toughness.
Noh discloses that the microstructure of the cold-rolled steel sheet may consist only of tempered martensite, so that it is possible to ensure a steel sheet having both excellent strength and formability ([0055]), which meets the structure limitation recited in claim 1.
Noh does not explicitly disclose that the microstructure has an FHAGB of 60% or more by area and LHAGB of 8 mm or more as recited in claim 1. However, these structure limitations depend on the steel composition and a method of making the steel.
Noh teaches a method of making the steel comprising: heating a steel slab to 1220 ºC, finish rolling at 900 ºC, coiling at 600 ºC, annealing at 890 ºC, cooling to 750 ºC at a cooling rate of 5 ºC/s, cooling to 400-450 ºC at a cooling rate of 480 ºC/s, then cooling to RT-150 ºC at a cooling rate of 150 ºC/s, reheating to 200 ºC ([0112]; Table 2, Example 7), which meets the processing conditions recited in claim 6.
In view of the fact that Noh teaches a steel sheet having composition that meets the recited composition in claim 1 and a method of making the steel sheet that meets the recited processing conditions in claim 6, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the steel disclosed by Noh to meet that the microstructure has an FHAGB of 60% or more by area and LHAGB of 8 mm or more as recited in claim 1. “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.
Regarding claim 3, as evidenced by Uchikoshi, even high purity iron with purity greater than 99.99 wt% contains 0.001-0.039 ppm Sn (Table 1). Thus, the steel disclosed by Noh meets the limitation that the cold-rolled steel sheet contains 0.05 wt.% or less Sn.
Regarding claim 4, Noh discloses that the average grain size of the microstructure of the cold-rolled steel sheet is 6 µm or less ([0102]), which meets the prior austenite grain size limitation recited in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Noh discloses that the tensile strength is 1475 MPa (Table 3, Ex. 7), which meets the recited tensile strength in claim 5. Noh is silent on hole expansion rate and thus Noh does not disclose TS x HER value. However, in view of the fact that Noh teaches a steel sheet having composition that meets the recited composition in claim 1 and a method of making the steel sheet that meets the recited processing conditions in claim 6, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the steel disclosed by Noh to meet the recited TS x HER value in claim 5. “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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights