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 1-9, in the reply filed on 7/7/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/7/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nonaka (US 2014/0370329).
With respect to Claim 1, Nonaka teaches a high-strength cold-rolled steel sheet, with a composition, in weight%, as follows (para. 14-16; Table 1):
Claim 1
Nonaka
Nonaka, Ex. Q
C
0.05-0.3
0.15-0.3
0.251
Si
0.01-2.0
0.01-1.0
0.325
Mn
1.5-3.0
1.5-2.7
1.84
Al
0.01-0.1
0.01-0.05
0.035
P
0.001-0.015
0.001-0.060
0.011
S
0.001-0.01
0.001-0.010
0.003
N
0.001-0.01
0.0005-0.0100
0.0041
Fe
Balance with unavoidable impurities
Balance with unavoidable impurities
Balance
Other
-
One or more of B, Mo, Cr, V, Ti, Nb, Ni, Cu, Ca, and REM
Mo: 0.11
B: 0.0010
Compositional ranges including zero are interpreted as optional elements. Nonaka teaches a steel sheet with compositional ranges overlapping each of the instantly claimed ranges and a specific example, Ex. Q, falling within each of the instantly claimed ranges and therefore, sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed ranges. Additionally, Ex. Q results in a value for the “Relational Expression 1” of 0.75, falling within the claimed range.
Nonaka further teaches wherein the steel has a microstructure, by area%, of 40-90% ferrite, 10-60% martensite, and one or more of 10% or less pearlite, 5% or less retained austenite, and 20% or less bainite. (abstract; para. 16). Nonaka teaches that Ex. Q has a microstructure, prior to an intended hot stamping process, of 78% ferrite, 18% martensite, and 4% bainite, anticipating the claimed ranges. (Table 3).
Finally, with respect to the claimed “average number of surface defects,” the limitation is drawn to a maximum number density of large defects on the surface meeting recited dimensions. Nonaka does not teach the presence of any such large surface defects and therefore, is deemed to meet the instant limitation.
In addition, Nonaka teaches a method of making comprising hot rolling with a finish temperature of 970°C or less, cooling after hot rolling at a rate of 20°C/s or more, coiling, cold rolling, and annealing at a temperature of 750-850°C. (para. 101-117). The instant application (see, e.g. claim 10), discloses a method of making the instantly claimed steel sheet comprising hot rolling at a temperature of 850-1150°C, cooling at a rate of 10-70 °C/s, coiling, cold rolling, and annealing at a temperature of 740-900°C. Therefore, as the reference teaches a steel sheet with the same composition, same microstructure and made the same or substantially similar method and method parameters, it would necessarily be expected to result in the same structure and properties, including an average number of surface defects falling within the claimed range.
"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, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Thus, the burden is shifted to the applicant to prove that the product of the prior art does not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics attributed to the claimed product. See In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not."); MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, the prima facie case can only be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.
With respect to Claims 2 and 4, Nonaka teaches contents of ferrite and a sum of martensite and bainite overlapping the claimed ranges (see rejection of claim 1 above; para. 16) and further teaches specific examples such as Ex. Q with a microstructure, comprising 78% ferrite, 18% martensite, and 4% bainite (22% total bainite and martensite), anticipating the respectively claimed ranges. (Table 3).
With respect to Claim 6, Nonaka teaches a steel comprising one or more of Cr: 0.01-0.50%, Mo: 0.01-0.50%, and B: 0.0005-0.0020%, overlapping the claimed ranges (para. 16) and Ex. Q having contents of Mo and B falling within the claimed ranges. (see Table 3; rejection of claim 1 above).
With respect to Claim 7, Nonaka teaches that Ex. Q has a tensile strength of 780 MPa. (Table 3). While Nonaka is silent as to the yield strength, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that yield strength correlates with tensile strength and as Nonaka teaches a steel having the same composition, same microstructure, substantially similar method of making, and results in a tensile strength meeting the claimed ranges, it would necessarily be expected to result in a steel having a yield strength meeting the claimed ranges. MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to Claim 8, Nonaka teaches Ex. Q has a product of tensile strength and elongation of 15678 MPa%, falling within the instantly claimed range. (Table 3).
With respect to Claim 9, Nonaka is silent as to a measured difference in yield strength between both end portions and a center portion in a width direction of the sheet, as instantly claimed. However, as the reference teaches a steel sheet with the same composition, same microstructure and made the same or substantially similar method and method parameters, it would necessarily be expected to result in the same structure and properties, including a yield strength difference meeting the claimed range. MPEP 2112.01.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takasaka (JP 2020/019992A)(cited on IDS, machine translation provided).
With respect to Claim 1, Takasaka teaches a high-strength cold-rolled steel sheet, with a composition, in weight%, as follows (pgs. 1-3 of translation; Table 1):
Claim 1
Takasaka
Takasaka, Ex. A
C
0.05-0.3
0.05-0.35
0.07
Si
0.01-2.0
0.01-2.0
1.20
Mn
1.5-3.0
0.8-3.2
2.10
Al
0.01-0.1
0.005-0.10
0.02
P
0.001-0.015
≤ 0.05
0.014
S
0.001-0.01
≤ 0.005
0.0008
N
0.001-0.01
≤ 0.006
0.0037
Fe
Balance with unavoidable impurities
Balance with inevitable impurities
Balance
Other
-
Optionally, one or more of V, Ti, Nb, Cr, Mo, Ni, Cu, B, Sb, REM, Mg, and Ca
-
Compositional ranges including zero are interpreted as optional elements. Takasaka teaches a steel sheet with compositional ranges overlapping each of the instantly claimed ranges and a specific example, Ex. A, falling within each of the instantly claimed ranges and therefore, sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed ranges. Additionally, Ex. A results in a value for the “Relational Expression 1” of 0.68, falling within the claimed range.
Takasaka further teaches wherein the steel has a microstructure, by area%, of 0-90% ferrite, 5% or less bainite, and 10-100% total of martensite and tempered martensite. (abstract). The instant claim requires “ferrite: 50% or more, a remainder bainite and martensite.” Therefore, the claim is interpreted to require ferrite, and an optional balance comprising bainite and/or martensite. Takasaka teaches that Ex. A has a microstructure comprising 67% ferrite, balance martensite and tempered martensite, and therefore, anticipates the claimed ranges. (Table 3).
Finally, with respect to the claimed “average number of surface defects,” the limitation is drawn to a maximum number density of large defects on the surface meeting recited dimensions. Takasaka teaches a steel having “excellent strength homogeneity, surface properties, and sheet shape” (pg. 1 of translation), does not teach the presence of any such large surface defects and therefore, is deemed to meet the instant limitation.
In addition, Takasaka teaches a method of making comprising hot rolling, cold rolling, and annealing at a temperature of 760°C or more. (pgs. 5-6 of translation). The instant application (see, e.g. claim 10), discloses a method of making the instantly claimed steel sheet comprising hot rolling, cold rolling, and annealing at a temperature of 740-900°C. Therefore, as the reference teaches a steel sheet with the same composition, same microstructure and made the same or substantially similar method and method parameters, it would necessarily be expected to result in the same structure and properties, including an average number of surface defects falling within the claimed range. MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, the prima facie case can only be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.
With respect to Claims 2-3, Takasaka teaches contents of ferrite and a sum of martensite and bainite overlapping the claimed ranges (see rejection of claim 1 above; abstract) and further teaches specific examples such as Ex. A with a microstructure, comprising 67% ferrite, 33% martensite/tempered martensite, anticipating the respectively claimed ranges. (Table 3).
With respect to Claim 7, Takasaka teaches that Ex. A has a tensile strength of 797 MPa and yield strength of 582 MPa, falling within the claimed ranges. (Table 3).
With respect to Claim 8, Takasaka teaches Ex. A has a product of tensile strength (797 MPa) and elongation (21%) of 16,767 MPa%, falling within the instantly claimed range. (Table 3).
With respect to Claim 9, Takasaka teaches a standard deviation of yield strength in a width direction of 30 MPa or less, deemed fall within the claimed limitation. (abstract; Table 3). Further, as the reference teaches a steel sheet with the same composition, same microstructure and made the same or substantially similar method and method parameters, it would necessarily be expected to result in the same structure and properties, including a yield strength difference meeting the claimed range. MPEP 2112.01.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka (US 2014/0370329) alone or in the alternative, in view of Koyama (JPH06315702A)(machine translation provided).
With respect to Claim 1, Nonaka teaches a high-strength cold-rolled steel sheet, with a composition, in weight%, as follows (para. 14-16; Table 1):
Claim 1
Nonaka
Nonaka, Ex. Q
C
0.05-0.3
0.15-0.3
0.251
Si
0.01-2.0
0.01-1.0
0.325
Mn
1.5-3.0
1.5-2.7
1.84
Al
0.01-0.1
0.01-0.05
0.035
P
0.001-0.015
0.001-0.060
0.011
S
0.001-0.01
0.001-0.010
0.003
N
0.001-0.01
0.0005-0.0100
0.0041
Fe
Balance with unavoidable impurities
Balance with unavoidable impurities
Balance
Other
-
One or more of B, Mo, Cr, V, Ti, Nb, Ni, Cu, Ca, and REM
Mo: 0.11
B: 0.0010
Compositional ranges including zero are interpreted as optional elements. Nonaka teaches a steel sheet with compositional ranges overlapping each of the instantly claimed ranges and a specific example, Ex. Q, falling within each of the instantly claimed ranges. Additionally, Ex. Q results in a value for the “Relational Expression 1” of 0.75, falling within the claimed range.
Nonaka further teaches wherein the steel has a microstructure, by area%, of 40-90% ferrite, 10-60% martensite, and one or more of 10% or less pearlite, 5% or less retained austenite, and 20% or less bainite. (abstract; para. 16). Nonaka teaches that Ex. Q has a microstructure, prior to an intended hot stamping process, of 78% ferrite, 18% martensite, and 4% bainite, anticipating the claimed ranges. (Table 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping compositional and microstructural ranges, including the Relational Expression 1 which fully depends on the composition. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claim overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
Finally, with respect to the claimed “average number of surface defects,” the limitation is drawn to a maximum number density of large defects on the surface meeting recited dimensions. Nonaka does not teach the presence of any such large surface defects and therefore, is deemed to meet the instant limitation.
In addition, Nonaka teaches a method of making comprising hot rolling with a finish temperature of 970°C or less, cooling after hot rolling at a rate of 20°C/s or more, coiling, cold rolling, and annealing at a temperature of 750-850°C. (para. 101-117). The instant application (see, e.g. claim 10), discloses a method of making the instantly claimed steel sheet comprising hot rolling at a temperature of 850-1150°C, cooling at a rate of 10-70 °C/s, coiling, cold rolling, and annealing at a temperature of 740-900°C. Therefore, as the reference teaches a steel sheet with the same composition, same microstructure and made the same or substantially similar method and method parameters, it would necessarily be expected to result in the same structure and properties, including an average number of surface defects falling within the claimed range. MPEP 2112.01.
In the alternative, Koyama teaches a hot rolled and cold rolled steel sheet, wherein the conditions of the hot rolling process are tailored to eliminate fine defects in the surface of the steel sheet. (abstract; pgs. 1-3 of translation). In particular, the reference teaches in para. 7, “The inventors have found that these defects are caused by fine grain boundary oxidation occurring in the heating stage of hot rolling, and that this oxidation is an extremely fast reaction involving the liquid phase. Once such an oxidation state occurs, it has been found that it is difficult to completely remove this by conventional descaling with high-pressure water or descaling combined with processing. Based on this knowledge, the present invention has completed a drastic solution in which these defects do not appear at all.” (pg. 2 of translation). Koyama teaches that by eliminating surface defects, a steel sheet with improved appearance is obtained and galvanizing treatment, if performed, is improved. (pgs. 2-3 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the steel sheet of Nonaka, to eliminate surface defects by modifying the hot rolling conditions, as taught by Koyama, in order to obtain a steel sheet with improved quality, appearance, and utility for further processing. The modified steel of Nonaka in view of Koyama, free of surface defects, is deemed to meet the instantly claimed surface defect limitation.
With respect to Claims 2 and 4, Nonaka teaches contents of ferrite and a sum of martensite and bainite overlapping the claimed ranges (see rejection of claim 1 above; para. 16) and further teaches specific examples such as Ex. Q with a microstructure, comprising 78% ferrite, 18% martensite, and 4% bainite (22% total bainite and martensite), falling within the respectively claimed ranges. (Table 3). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claims 3 and 5, Nonaka teaches wherein the steel has a microstructure, by area%, of 40-90% ferrite, 10-60% martensite, and one or more of 10% or less pearlite, 5% or less retained austenite, and 20% or less bainites, overlapping the respectively claimed ranges. (see rejection of claim 1 above; para. 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claim overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 6, Nonaka teaches a steel comprising one or more of Cr: 0.01-0.50%, Mo: 0.01-0.50%, and B: 0.0005-0.0020%, overlapping the claimed ranges (para. 16) and Ex. Q having contents of Mo and B falling within the claimed ranges. (see Table 3; rejection of claim 1 above). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 7, Nonaka teaches that Ex. Q has a tensile strength of 780 MPa. (Table 3). While Nonaka is silent as to the yield strength, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that yield strength correlates with tensile strength and as Nonaka teaches a steel having the same composition, same microstructure, substantially similar method of making, and results in a tensile strength meeting the claimed ranges, it would necessarily be expected to result in a steel having a yield strength meeting the claimed ranges. MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to Claim 8, Nonaka teaches Ex. Q has a product of tensile strength and elongation of 15678 MPa%, falling within the instantly claimed range. (Table 3).
With respect to Claim 9, Nonaka is silent as to a measured difference in yield strength between both end portions and a center portion in a width direction of the sheet, as instantly claimed. However, as the reference teaches a steel sheet with the same composition, same microstructure and made the same or substantially similar method and method parameters, it would necessarily be expected to result in the same structure and properties, including a yield strength difference meeting the claimed range. MPEP 2112.01.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takasaka (JP 2020/019992A)(cited on IDS, machine translation provided) alone or in the alternative, in view of Koyama (JPH06315702A)(machine translation provided).
With respect to Claim 1, Takasaka teaches a high-strength cold-rolled steel sheet, with a composition, in weight%, as follows (pgs. 1-3 of translation; Table 1):
Claim 1
Takasaka
Takasaka, Ex. A
C
0.05-0.3
0.05-0.35
0.07
Si
0.01-2.0
0.01-2.0
1.20
Mn
1.5-3.0
0.8-3.2
2.10
Al
0.01-0.1
0.005-0.10
0.02
P
0.001-0.015
≤ 0.05
0.014
S
0.001-0.01
≤ 0.005
0.0008
N
0.001-0.01
≤ 0.006
0.0037
Fe
Balance with unavoidable impurities
Balance with inevitable impurities
Balance
Other
-
Optionally, one or more of V, Ti, Nb, Cr, Mo, Ni, Cu, B, Sb, REM, Mg, and Ca
-
Compositional ranges including zero are interpreted as optional elements. Takasaka teaches a steel sheet with compositional ranges overlapping each of the instantly claimed ranges and a specific example, Ex. A, falling within each of the instantly claimed ranges. Additionally, Ex. A results in a value for the “Relational Expression 1” of 0.68, falling within the claimed range.
Takasaka further teaches wherein the steel has a microstructure, by area%, of 0-90% ferrite, 5% or less bainite, and 10-100% total of martensite and tempered martensite. (abstract). The instant claim requires “ferrite: 50% or more, a remainder bainite and martensite.” Therefore, the claim is interpreted to require ferrite, and an optional balance comprising bainite and/or martensite. Takasaka teaches that Ex. A has a microstructure comprising 67% ferrite, balance martensite and tempered martensite, and therefore, anticipates the claimed ranges. (Table 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping compositional and microstructural ranges, including the Relational Expression 1 which fully depends on the composition. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claim overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
Finally, with respect to the claimed “average number of surface defects,” the limitation is drawn to a maximum number density of large defects on the surface meeting recited dimensions. Takasaka teaches a steel having “excellent strength homogeneity, surface properties, and sheet shape” (pg. 1 of translation), does not teach the presence of any such large surface defects and therefore, is deemed to meet the instant limitation.
In addition, Takasaka teaches a method of making comprising hot rolling, cold rolling, and annealing at a temperature of 760°C or more. (pgs. 5-6 of translation). The instant application (see, e.g. claim 10), discloses a method of making the instantly claimed steel sheet comprising hot rolling, cold rolling, and annealing at a temperature of 740-900°C. Therefore, as the reference teaches a steel sheet with the same composition, same microstructure and made the same or substantially similar method and method parameters, it would necessarily be expected to result in the same structure and properties, including an average number of surface defects falling within the claimed range. MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, the prima facie case can only be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.
In the alternative, Koyama teaches a hot rolled and cold rolled steel sheet, wherein the conditions of the hot rolling process are tailored to eliminate fine defects in the surface of the steel sheet. (abstract; pgs. 1-3 of translation). In particular, the reference teaches in para. 7, “The inventors have found that these defects are caused by fine grain boundary oxidation occurring in the heating stage of hot rolling, and that this oxidation is an extremely fast reaction involving the liquid phase. Once such an oxidation state occurs, it has been found that it is difficult to completely remove this by conventional descaling with high-pressure water or descaling combined with processing. Based on this knowledge, the present invention has completed a drastic solution in which these defects do not appear at all.” (pg. 2 of translation). Koyama teaches that by eliminating surface defects, a steel sheet with improved appearance is obtained and galvanizing treatment, if performed, is improved. (pgs. 2-3 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the steel sheet of Takasaka, to eliminate surface defects by modifying the hot rolling conditions, as taught by Koyama, in order to obtain a steel sheet with improved quality, appearance, and utility for further processing. The modified steel of Takasaka in view of Koyama, free of surface defects, is deemed to meet the instantly claimed surface defect limitation.
With respect to Claims 2-3, Takasaka teaches contents of ferrite and a sum of martensite and bainite overlapping the claimed ranges (see rejection of claim 1 above; abstract) and further teaches specific examples such as Ex. A with a microstructure, comprising 67% ferrite, 33% martensite/tempered martensite, anticipating the respectively claimed ranges. (Table 3). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claims 4-5, Takasaka teaches contents of ferrite, bainite, and martensite overlapping the claimed ranges (see rejection of claim 1 above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 6, Takasaka teaches the optional inclusion of Cr: 0.001-1.0%, Mo: 0.001-1.0%, and/or B: 0.0002-0.0050%. (pg. 3 of translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 7, Takasaka teaches that Ex. A has a tensile strength of 797 MPa and yield strength of 582 MPa, falling within the claimed ranges. (Table 3). The reference further teaches wherein the steel, in general, has a tensile strength range of 780 MPa or more. (abstract).
With respect to Claim 8, Takasaka teaches Ex. A has a product of tensile strength (797 MPa) and elongation (21%) of 16,767 MPa%, falling within the instantly claimed range. (Table 3).
With respect to Claim 9, Takasaka teaches a standard deviation of yield strength in a width direction of 30 MPa or less, deemed fall within the claimed limitation. (abstract; Table 3). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. MPEP § 2144.05. Further, as the reference teaches a steel sheet with the same composition, same microstructure and made the same or substantially similar method and method parameters, it would necessarily be expected to result in the same structure and properties, including a yield strength difference meeting the claimed range. MPEP 2112.01.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka (US 2014/0370329) alone or in the alternative, in view of Koyama (JPH06315702A)(machine translation provided), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Takasaka (JP 2020/019992A)(cited on IDS, machine translation provided).
In the alternative to the above rejections of Claim 9, Nonaka is silent as to the difference in yield strength across a width direction.
Takasaka teaches a steel with a composition and microstructure substantially overlapping that of Nonaka and the instant claims. (pgs. 1-3 of translation). The reference teaches that the steel sheet, has a standard deviation of yield strength in a width direction of 30 MPa or less, deemed fall within the claimed limitation. (abstract; Table 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the steel sheet of Nonaka, to form the steel sheet with a standard deviation of yield strength of 30 MPa or less across a width direction, as taught by Takasaka, and therefore, to minimize the difference in yield strength across the ends and the center of the sheet in a width direction in order to improve the uniformity of the sheet properties.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2017/0183753, drawn to a rolled steel with minimized surface defects, but differing in that the steel comprises a main microstructural phase of bainite.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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 Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JOHN A HEVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights