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 10-17 and 22-25) in the reply filed on 07/08/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 18-21 are withdrawn. Claims 10-17 and 22-25 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 10-17 and 22-25 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.
Claim 10 recites “A steel sheet for hot pressing, comprising …” in line 1. “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase, which does not exclude additional elements. Claim 10 also recites “a reminder composed of Fe” in line 14. “composed of” is a closed transitional phrase, which exclude other elements. Simultaneously using “comprising” and “composed of” in reciting the steel composition causes confusion as whether other elements are excluded. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “complex precipitates” in line 21. The meaning of “complex precipitates” is unclear. 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 10-17 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki (US 2013/0095347), and further in view of Murakami (US 2015/0007911).
Regarding claims 10, 14 and 15, Kawasaki discloses (Abstract; [0010] to [0023]) a steel sheet for hot stamping with a composition that overlaps with the instant claimed composition and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected amounts of each element from the ranges disclosed in Kawasaki to produce a steel sheet that meets the recited composition in claim 1. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Steel H in Table 2 of Kawasaki meets the recited composition in claim 10.
Element
Claim 1
(mass %)
Kawasaki
(mass %)
Overlap
(mass %)
C
0.26-0.5
0.2-0.35
0.26-0.35
Si
0.01-1.0
0.1-0.5
0.1-0.5
Mn
1-3
1-3
1-3
P
≤0.1
≤0.015
≤0.015
S
≤0.01
≤0.01
≤0.01
Al
0.01-1.5
0.005-0.06
0.01-0.06
N
≤0.01
≤0.004
≤0.004
Nb
0.005-0.1
0.002-0.1
0.005-0.1
B
0.0005-0.02
0.0-0.005
0.0005-0.005
Ti
3.4N+0.01-
3.4N+0.2
0.002-0.1
0.01-0.1
Fe + Impurities
Balance
Balance
Balance
Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose the structure limitations and the dislocation density limitation as recited in claim 10. However, these characteristics depend on the steel composition and the method of making the steel.
Kawasaki discloses a method making the steel comprising: heating a steel material to 1270°C or lower; then, after rough rolling, performing hot rolling including finish rolling such that a total rolling reduction ratio from the third stand to the last stand in finish rolling is 60% or more and the finish rolling end temperature is 800-900 ºC; then starting cooling within 1 second after completion of the finish rolling; performing cooling at an average cooling rate of 200°C/s or less to a cooling stop temperature of 6000C or less; performing coiling at the cooling stop temperature; and then, after pickling the steel sheet, cold-rolling the steel sheet at a rolling reduction ratio of 40% or more and 80% or less ([0039]; [0073] to [0078]). Kawasaki discloses steel H with RC calculated to be 1082.62 ºC. Thus, (RC - 2000C) or more and (RC - 200C) or less for steel H is 882.62 ºC to 1062.62 ºC. The finish rolling end temperature disclosed by Kawasaki is 800-900 ºC ([0076]). Thus, the processing conditions disclosed by Kawasaki overlap the recited hot roll temperature and reduction ratio, cooling rate and cooling stop temperature, coiling temperature and cold rolling reduction ratio in claims 14 and 15.
Kawasaki does not disclose that after the coiling step, cool the steel sheet from the cooling stop temperature to 5000C at an average cooling rate of 50°C/hr or less. Murakami teaches a method of making a steel sheet for hot pressing and discloses that after coiling, the steel sheet is furnace cooled ([0055] to [0071]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform furnace cooling after coiling in order to make a steel sheet for hot pressing as disclosed by Murakami. Furnace cooling disclosed by Murakami meets the recited cooling rate of 50°C/hr or less as recited in claims 14 and 15.
In view of the fact that Kawasaki in view of Murakami teaches a steel composition that meets the recited steel composition in claim 10 and a method of making the steel that meets the recited processing conditions in claims 14-15, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the cold-rolled steel sheet disclosed by Kawasaki in view of Murakami to meet the recited structure limitation and the dislocation density limitation in claims 10. “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 11, Kawasaki discloses that the steel contains 0.0005 wt. % to 1 wt.% Cr ([0052]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12-13 and 16-17, Kawasaki discloses that the steel sheet comprises a Zn-coating layer on surface ([0078]), which meets the limitation recited in claims 12-13.
Regarding claims 22-25, Kawasaki discloses a method for producing a hot-pressed member, comprising: heating the steel sheet to a temperature of an Ac3 transformation point or higher and 900°C or less at an average heating rate of 5°C/s or more and 100°C/s or less, holding the steel sheet in this temperature range for 60 seconds, and then hot-pressing the steel sheet at an Ms temperature or higher ([0081] to [0083]). Trimming the steel sheet for hot pressing by shearing is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to adjust the size of the steel sheet suitable for hot pressed parts. Thus, claims 22-25 are obvious over Kawasaki in view of Murakami.
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