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 .
This application is a 371 of PCT/IB2021/059967 10/28/2021
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 15-29 remain for examination, wherein claims 1 and 23 are independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-20 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
all names of alloy elements should apply “low case”,
“Martensite”, “Residual Austenite” on line 27 of claim 1, “Martensite” in claim 20 should apply “low case”,
The “HR1from” on line 36 of claim 23 and “CR1from” on line 39 of claim 23 should add proper space for the limitations.
The amount of elements in claims 16-19 and amount of martensite in claim 20 need proper unit.
The coiling temperature range “from 750oC to 550oC” is suggested to be amended as “from 550oC to 750oC”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 15-17, 19-22, and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TERASAWA YUSUKE et al (JP 2018123411 A, with on-line translation, thereafter JP’411).
Regarding claim 15-17 and 19-20, JP’411 teaches an abrasion resistant steel sheet that has both low-temperature toughness and abrasion resistance at high level manufacturing by hot-rolling (Abstract, claims, and par.[0045]-[0047] of JP’411), which read son the hot-rolled steel sheet as claimed in the instant claim. The comparison between the claimed alloy composition ranges and the example #H in table 1 of JP’411 is listed in following table. All of the alloy composition ranges are within the claimed alloy composition ranges. Since JP’411 teaches all of the essential alloy elements and microstructures as claimed in the instant claims, claims 15-17 and 19-20 are anticipated by JP;411.
Element
From instant Claims 15-17, 19-20, and 23 (mass%)
Example #H in table 1 of JP’411 (mass %)
within range
(mass %)
C
0.38-0.5 (cl.15, 23)
0.39-0.48 (cl.17)
0.40
0.40
Mn
1-2
1.16
1.16
Si
0.1-0.7 (cl.15, 23)
0.2-0.6 (cl.16)
0.3
0.3
Al
0.01-0.1 (cl.15, 23)
0.02-0.06 (cl.19)
0.030
0.030
Cr
0.3-1
0.8
0.8
B
0.002-0.05
0.0022
0.0022
P
0.002-0.02
0.05
0.05
S
0-0.005
0.0014
0.0014
N
0-0.01
0.0019
0.0019
One or more of
Mo: 0-0.5
V: 0-0.5
Nb: 0-0.5
Ti: 0.001-0.1
Ni: 0-1
Cu: 0-1
Sn: 0-0.1
Pb:0-0.1
Sb:0-0.1
Ca: 0.0001-0.01
Mg:0-0.0010:
Ti: 0.016
Ti: 0.016
Fe
Reminder + impurities
Balance + impurities
Balance + impurities
Martensite (area%)
94 or more (cl.15)
95-99 (cl.20)
99 (table 2)
99
RA (area%)
0-5
<1
0-1
Carbides of Cr, Nb, V
0-5
<1
0-1
From claims 21-22
From table 2 of JP’411
Hardness (Hv)
580 (cl.21)
600 (cl.22)
612
612
Wear lose (mm3/s)
0.085 (cl.21)
0.08 (cl,22)
Same alloy with same microstructures
MPEP 2112 III&IV
Regarding claims 21-22, the claimed hardness and wear loss are recognized as material properties fully depended on the alloy composition and microstructure. Referring to the rejection above, JP’411 teaches the same alloy composition and microstructure as claimed in the instant claims. The claimed hardness and wear loss would be inherently existed in the alloy of JP’411. MPEP 2112 III&IV. Actually, the example #H in table 1 of JP’411 teaches the same hardness as claimed in the instant claims.
Regarding claims 28-29, JP’411 teaches application of the steel sheet for Industrial machinery, parts, and transport equipment (eg, excavators, bulldozers, hoppers, bucket conveyors, rock crushing devices) used in the fields of construction, civil engineering, mining, etc. (par.[0007] of JP’411), which reads on the claimed using of the steel sheet as claimed in the instant claims.
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’411.
Regarding claim 18, the 1.16wt% Mn disclosed by the example #H in table 1 of JP’411 is outside the claimed 1.3-1.8wt% Mn as claimed in the instant claim. JP’411 specify adjusting Mn in range 0.50wt% or more and 3.00wt% or less in order to improve the hardenability of steel (par.[0020] of JP’411), which overlapping the claimed Mn range as claimed in the instant claim. Overlapping in Mn range creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the amount of Mn as disclosed by JP’411 as claimed in order to improve the hardenability of steel. (par.[0020] of JP’411).
Claim(s) 23-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’411 in view of Cho et al (US-PG-pub 2019/0382864 A1, listed in IDS filed on 5/30/2024, thereafter PG’864).
Regarding claims 23-27, JP’411 teaches the same alloy as claimed in the instant claim as discussed in the rejection of claim 15 above. JP’411 teaches all of the major process steps including reheating, hot-rolling, annealing, quenching, and tempering (Table 2, par.[0045]-[0051], and examples of JP’411) as claimed in the instant claim. Hot-rolling temperature range 850-1000oC disclosed by JP’411 (par.[0046] of JP’411)overlapping the claimed rolling temperature range in claim 25. MPEP 2144 05 I. JP’411 does not specify coiling at a temperature range of 550-750oC as claimed in the instant claim. PG’864 teaches a hot-rolled steel sheet (par.[0082]-[0086] of PG’864) with all of the essential alloy composition ranges (Abstract, claims, and examples of PG’864) overlapping the claimed alloy composition ranges. MPEP 2144 05 I. PG’864 specify coiling the steel sheet at temperature range of 500-750oC (par.[0082] of PG’864), which overlapping the claimed coiling temperature range. MPEP 2144 05 I. PG’864 further teaches tempering for 30 min. (Par.[0107] of PG’864) and cooling to room temperature after heat treatment (par.[0020] of PG’864). Overlapping the process parameters as disclosed by JP’411 and PG’864 creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the parameters of process steps as disclosed by JP’411 and/or PG’864 since both JP’411 and PG’864 teach the same hot-rolled steel sheet as claimed throughout whole disclosing range.
From claim 23-27
Example #H in table 2 of JP’411
Within range
Reheating T (oC)
1100-1300 (cl.23)
1200-1275 (cl.24)
1210
1210
Rolling finish T (oC)
850-975 (cl.23)
880-930 (cl.25)
850
850-1000
850 (cl.23)
Overlapping
880-930 (cl.25)
Coiling T (oC)
750-550 (cl.23)
570-720 (cl.26)
500-750 (par.[0082] of PG’864)
Overlapping
750-550 (cl.23)
570-720 (cl.26)
Annealing T (oC)
Ac3-Ac3+100
With HR1 1-100oC/s
790
Reads on
Cooling stop T1 (oC)
Ms-75 to 20 with CR1-1-150oC/s (cl.23)
Ms-100 to 20 (cl.27)
75 oC/s
Cooling stop T 20oC (par.0050])
Read on
Annealing time
10 sec to 10 hrs
tempering at temperature 100-350oC (par.[0051])
Tempering for 30 min. (Par.[0107] of PG’864)
Tempering for 30 min. (Par.[0107] of PG’864)
Cooling
To RT
To RT (par.[0020] of PG’864)
To RT (par.[0020] of PG’864)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. 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.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights