DETAILED ACTION
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 2,3,5,8 and 10 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.
Regarding claims, the language "preferably", “more preferably” and “most preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. This language occurs in claim 2, line 10; claim 3, lines 2 and 4; claim 5, lines 2-4; claim 8, line 6 and claim 10, line 3.
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) 1-4 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blaise et al. (2020/0399734). Blaise discloses performing a hot stamping ([0107], lines 1-3) on a pre-coated steel plate matrix ([0065],[0066]) using a die (press tooling in a forming press) at a hot stamping temperature (850-1000°C; [0101], line 5) to obtain a hot stamped component (part; [0107], line 6). Blaise discloses performing a preliminary heat treatment on the pre-coated steel plate matrix (non-stamped pre-coated steel sheet; [0070], lines 1-3) before the hot stamping, the preliminary heat treatment comprising (1) heating the pre-coated steel plate matrix to between 750-1000°C [0071] for a time duration of t1min to t1max [0073] wherein for a temperature of 920°C, t1min is about 2 minutes and t1max is about 14 minutes and (2) cooling the pre-coated steel plate matrix to below 300 °C [0094] after the step of heating and temperature holding ([0082],[0083]) at a cooling rate not less than 5 °C/s (10°C/s; [0083], line 8). Regarding the preliminary heat treatment step (3), it is claimed as optional so it not a required step and is not read as a part of the heat treatment.
Regarding claim 2, Blaise discloses [0061] that in addition to ferrum (Iron), the pre-coated steel plate matrix comprises the following composition represented by weight percentage: carbon 0.2-0.4% (Blaise discloses carbon 0.15-0.5%); manganese 0.5-1.5% (Blaise discloses 0.5-3% Manganese); boron 0-0.005% (Blaise discloses 0-0.01% Boron) and one or more alloying element(s) not more than 1%, selected from aluminum (Blaise discloses Aluminum less than or equal to 0.1%), silicon, chromium, molybdenum, niobium, vanadium; and other inevitable impurities. Blaise discloses that the pre-coated steel plate matrix is between 0.5-5 mm [0034].
Regarding claim 3, Blaise discloses that the pre-coating layer of Al-Si ([0066], lines 3-5) has a thickness of between 20-70 µm [0068].
Regarding claim 4, Blaise discloses a thickness of between 20-70 µm [0068] and a holding temperature between 750-1000°C wherein for a for a temperature of 920°C, t1min is about 2 minutes and t1max is about 14 minutes.
Regarding claim 7, Blaise discloses an FeAl microstructure ([0031], lines 6-10) wherein the steel sheet has a ferrite-pearlite microstructure [0023] of about 70% since the bainite and martensite is controlled to be less than 30% [0022].
Regarding claim 8, Blaise discloses that the preliminarily heat-treated steel sheet is heated to between 850-1000°C [0101] for a duration of t3 which is 1 min 40 sec to 6 min (table 2) and rapidly transferred within 10 sec to the press for hot forming in a fully austenitic state at 900°C [0119].
Regarding claim 9, after press forming and cooling the microstructure is fully martensitic ([0119], lines 4-5).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaise et al. (2020/0399734) in view of Drillet et al. (2011/0165436). Blaise discloses after forming in the press that the part is cooled [0107] but does not disclose the cooling rate. Drillet teaches that a pre-coated sheet is heated to between 880°C-940°C and depending upon the thickness, is heated for 3 to 13 minutes ([0066]-[0069]) then the sheet is hot stamped and cooled in the press at a cooling rate of greater than 30°C/s [0070]. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to cool the hot stamped part in the press die of Blaise at a cooling rate of greater than 30°C/s as taught by Drillet to press harden the part in the press tooling after hot stamping.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaise et al. (2020/0399734) in view of Abukawa et al. (11,505,846). Blaise does not disclose that the steel sheet has no carbide grains greater than 0.5 µm. Abukawa teaches (col. 9, lines 19-28) that a cooling (first quenching) is performed on a steel sheet so that an average carbide grain diameter is 0.5 µm or less and that a total area fraction of bainite and martensite is 80% or more and the proportion of a pearlite colony (col. 9, lines 25-26) does not have coarse grains with an average grain diameter of 0.5 µm or less (col. 9, lines 44-45). Abukawa teaches that the cooling rate in the temperature zone from 700°C to 500°C (col. 10, lines 33-37) is 10°C/s or greater.
Blaise discloses [0083] that the cooling rate of 10° C/s transforms the steel microstructure to have area fractions of bainite and martensite with less than 30% but it is obvious as taught by Abukawa that a cooling rate greater than 10° C/s in the temperature range from 700°C to 500°C generates a greater area fraction of bainite and martensite with finer carbide grains and it is an obvious modification to conduct routine experimentation with cooling rates greater than 10° C/s as taught by Abukawa to fine the grains of the steel sheet of Blaise.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaise et al. (2020/0399734) in view of Abukawa et al. (11,505,846). Blaise does not disclose that the microstructure after hot stamping has an austenite grain size not greater than 18 µm. Abukawa teaches that an austenite grain diameter of a stamped part is 20 µm or less (col. 5, lines 1-4 and col. 12, lines 45-49). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to repeat cooling times in the heat treatment of Blaise as taught by Abukawa in order to refine the grain size of the austenite to be at least 20 µm or less to obtain sufficient fracture toughness of the stamped part.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD THOMAS TOLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Chris Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
/EDWARD T TOLAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725