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 .
Status of Claims
No claim amendments are made in view of applicant’s response filed 12/30/2025. Claims 26-41 remain withdrawn from consideration. Therefore, claims 21-25 are currently under examination.
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.
Claim(s) 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. US 2019/0003029 (Oh).
Oh teaches a Al-Fe plated steel sheet for hot press forming, wherein the steel sheet as a composition that applies to the claimed steel sheet composition as follows:
Wt%
Instant claims
Oh ([0112], Table 1)
C
0.04-0.45
0.24
Si
1.5 or less, excluding 0
0.2
Mn
0.2-2.5
1.2
P
0.05
0.015 (broader range 0.001-0.05 [0011]
S
0.02 or less
0.003
Al
0.01-0.1
0.03
Cr
0.01-5.0
0.2
N
0.02 or less
0.0035
Residual Fe + inevitable Impurities
Residual Fe + inevitable Impurities
Residual Fe + inevitable Impurities
Additional elements
At least one of
Mo: 0.05 or less
Ni: 0.05 or less
Nb:0.1 or less
Ti: 0.1 or less
B: 0.01 or less
Ti; 0.03
B: 0.002
Regarding claims 21 and 24-25, Oh further teaches that the Al-Fe plated steel sheet is batch annealed at a 500-650°C for 5 hours and at a heating rate of 50°C/hr(Table 2, [0115]). Therefore, the process conditions as taught by Oh reads on the process conditions disclosed in the instant specification. Since the plated steel sheet of Oh is compositionally significantly similar to the claimed steel composition and undergoes a batch annealing process at the same conditions as disclosed by the instant specification, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious that plated steel sheet manufactured by the process of Oh to result in a product with significantly similar properties and microstructures, such as claimed carbon segregation results and the claimed microstructure containing significantly similar amounts of ferrite, pearlite, bainite and martensite, with the claimed resulting whiteness.
Regarding claims 22-23, the chemical composition of the steel sheet as taught by Oh is significant similar to the claimed steel sheet chemical composition, with C, Si, Mn, S, Al, Cr, N, Ti and B read on the claimed amounts of C, Si, Mn, S, Al, Cr, N, Ti and B. The amount of P in the steel sheet of Oh also encompasses the claimed P amount. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues that Oh does not teach the carbon segregation index as defined by the claimed rational expression 1.
However, the examiner does not find applicant’s argument convincing because, as discussed in section 4 above, the steel sheet of Oh comprises an alloy composition that is significantly similar to the claimed alloy composition as recited in claims 22-23, including amounts of C, Si, Mn, S, Al, Cr, N, Ti and B that read on the claimed amounts of C, Si, Mn, S, Al, Cr, N, Ti and B. The broader scope of Oh also discloses a P amount of 0.001-0.05 wt%, which encompasses the claimed P amount of 0.05wt% as recited in claim 22. Furthermore, Oh’s method of making the steel sheet material includes a bath annealing step under process conditions, such as annealing temperature of 500-650°C, retention time of 5 hours and temperature increase velocity of 50°C/hr, that read on the annealing temperature, retention time and temperature increase velocity as taught in the instant specification and withdrawn claim 26. The examiner maintains that the process of Oh would have produced a steel sheet with significantly similar carbon segregation index as claimed, absent persuasive factual evidence to the contrary. Since applicant’s response has not included any factual evidence showing that the process of Oh would have resulted in a steel sheet with a different carbon segregation index, the examiner maintains that the rejection is proper.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Castan et al. US 2024/0060160 teaches a tin plated steel sheet that is batch annealed to form a steel sheet having a ferritic microstructure, wherein the batch annealing temperature is 600-700°C with a heating rate of 10-50°C/hr for a soaking time of at least 1 hour.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOIS L ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1248. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45.
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.
LOIS ZHENG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/LOIS L ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights