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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09 May 2024 and 13 August 2024 were considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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 25, 33 and 34 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.
The term “substantially impermeable” in claims 25 and 33 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially impermeable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear if the claim would require the barrier to allow zero nitrogen into the steel sheet or if the claimed limitation would be met if the barrier allowed an amount of nitrogen greater than zero into the steel sheet.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 34 recites the broad recitation for C “more than 0.001% and less than 0.1%”, and the claim also recites “preferably less than 0.06%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 34 is also indefinite with respect to the ranges of S and Al as they also recite a broad range with a narrow range.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 25-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102020112485 of Porzgen in view of US2010178491 of Mennig.
Regarding Claim 25, Porzgen discloses a steel sheet and method for producing a steel sheet for packaging in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Porzgen teaches that a hot-rolled steel sheet is first cold-rolled, which is made from a steel with a carbon content (C) of 10 to 1000 ppm based on weight, wherein the steel of the cold-rolled steel sheet has a predetermined recrystallization temperature, Para[0013]. Porzgen discloses that when the cold-rolled steel sheet is heated, nitrogen from the nitrogen donor is incorporated into at least a near-surface (edge) area of the steel sheet by diffusing (atomic) nitrogen from the nitrogen donor into the near-surface (edge) area. This raises the recrystallization temperature of the steel in the near-surface (edge) area by a value ΔT, and that the heating temperature is therefore set in the inventive method such that it lies between the (original) recrystallization temperature of the steel used for the production of the cold-rolled steel sheet and the recrystallization temperature increased by the value ΔT due to the near-surface embossing of the steel sheet in the near-surface (seam) area, Para[0013]. Porzgen is silent regarding the application of a barrier layer to the steel sheet.
Mennig teaches ultra-hard composite layers on metal surfaces and method for producing the same in a similar field of endeavor to the claimed invention. Mennig discloses that thin, transparent layers based on sol-gel systems and nanosize systems can be produced by wet coating processes. DE-A-102004001097 (corresponding to WO-A-2005066388) describes a coating technology by means of which layers having a thickness of only a few μm can be obtained on metal surfaces. Despite this low thickness, the layers are very abrasion-resistant and cannot be scratched by means of, for example, α-alumina-containing scouring sponges, Para[0006]. Mennig discloses SiO2, Para[0018, 0033]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the barrier layer coating taught by Mennig in the steel sheet disclosed by Porzgen for abrasion resistance. Thus, Porzgen in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of claim 25.
Claim 26 further limits claim 25 by claiming that the steel of the cold-rolled steel sheet has the following composition by weight: C: more than 0.001% and less than 0.1%; Mn: more than 0.01% and less than 0.6%; P: less than 0.04 %; S: less than 0.04%; Al: more than 50 ppm and less than 0.08%; Si: less than 0.1 %; an average nitrogen content by weight after heating of the cold-rolled steel sheet in the nitriding gas atmosphere of at least 0.005%; residual iron and unavoidable impurities.
Porzgen discloses overlapping ranges for all of the claimed elements, Para[0026]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Porzgen in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of claim 26.
Claim 27 further limits claim 25 by claiming that the steel of the cold-rolled steel sheet has the following composition by weight: C: more than 0.001% and less than 0.1%; Mn: more than 0.01% and less than 0.6%; P: less than 0.04 %; S: less than 0.04%; Al: more than 50 ppm and less than 0.08%; Si: less than 0.1 %; Cu: less than 0.1 %; Cr: less than 0.1 %; Ni: less than 0.1 %; Ti: less than 0.1% and more than 0.02%; Nb: less than 0.08% and more than 0.01%; Mo: less than 0.08 %; Sn: less than 0.05 %; B: less than 0.01% and more than 0.0005%; N: more than 0.001% and less than 0.016% before the heating and at least 0.005% after the heating of the cold-rolled steel sheet in the nitriding gas atmosphere ; residual iron and unavoidable impurities.
Porzgen discloses overlapping ranges for all of the claimed elements, Para[0026]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Porzgen in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of claim 27.
Claim 28 further limits claim 25 by claiming that the cold-rolled steel sheet is heated from room temperature to the heating temperature within a predetermined heating time and, after reaching the heating temperature, the cold-rolled steel sheet is kept at the heating temperature for a predetermined annealing time, wherein the heating time is in the range from 1.0 to 300 seconds and the annealing time is in the range from 1.0 seconds to 80 seconds.
Porzgen teaches that the first heating time in which the steel sheet is heated from room temperature to the intermediate temperature in the two-stage process, is preferably in the range of 1.0 to 120 seconds, and that the holding time in which the steel sheet is kept at the intermediate temperature is also preferably in the range of 1.0 to 90 seconds, particularly preferably between 10 and 60 seconds, and is also selected according to the desired material properties of the steel sheet according to the invention, Para[0024]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Porzgen in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of 28.
Claim 29 further limits claim 25 by claiming that the steel of the cold-rolled steel sheet has an initial nitrogen content and, during heating of the cold-rolled steel sheet, the average nitrogen content in the near surface region increases to a value averaged over the near surface region being between 50 and 1000 ppm above the initial nitrogen content of the steel, wherein a gradient of the nitrogen content is established with a decreasing nitrogen content from the near surface region on the second side of the steel sheet to the first side of the steel sheet.
Porzgen discloses that it is also possible to use a steel that contains no nitrogen apart from unavoidable nitrogen impurities, Para[0028]. After nitriding, Porzgen teaches a distinct gradient of nitrogen content across the thickness of the steel sheet was observed, with nitrogen contents of approximately 900 ppm by weight at the surface of the steel sheet, Para[0097]. This increase of 900 ppm falls within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Porzgen in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of 29.
Claim 30 further limits claim 29 by claiming that during the heating at least temporarily a nitriding of the near surface region on the second side of the cold-rolled steel sheet takes place and during the annealing time at least partially a recrystallization annealing of the cold-rolled steel sheet takes place in a first region on the first side of the steel sheet outside the near surface region, whereas the near surface region on the second side of the steel sheet is not recrystallized.
Porzgen teaches that the two-layer microstructure has a first layer that is at least substantially recrystallized and a second layer that is not, or at least not completely, recrystallized, Para[0015]. Thus, Porzgen in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of 30.
Claim 31 further limits claim 25 by claiming that the value by which the recrystallization temperature in the near surface region is increased by incorporation of nitrogen during heating of the steel sheet, is greater than 30°C.
Porzgen teaches that the value ΔT, by which the recrystallization temperature in the seam area increases due to the incorporation of nitrogen when heating the steel sheet, is preferably greater than 50°C and particularly preferably greater than 100°C, and is particularly in the range of 100°C to 250°C. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Porzgen in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of 31.
Claim 32 further limits claim 25 the barrier layer is formed by applying a sol-gel layer on the surface of the first side of the steel sheet.
Mennig discloses that thin, transparent layers based on sol-gel systems and nanosize systems can be produced by wet coating processes. DE-A-102004001097 (corresponding to WO-A-2005066388) describes a coating technology by means of which layers having a thickness of only a few μm can be obtained on metal surfaces. Despite this low thickness, the layers are very abrasion-resistant and cannot be scratched by means of, for example, α-alumina-containing scouring sponges, Para[0006]. Mennig discloses SiO2, Para[0018, 0033]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the barrier layer coating taught by Mennig in the steel sheet disclosed by Porzgen for abrasion resistance. Thus, Porzgen in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of claim 32.
Regarding claim 33, Porzgen teaches that the packaging steel, which is supplied as a flat steel product, should have the usual thicknesses in the thin sheet metal range of 0.5 mm or less. Thus, Porzgen in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of claim 33.
Claim 34 further limits claim 33 by claiming that the steel sheet has the following composition by weight: C: more than 0.001% and less than 0.1%, preferably less than 0.06%; Mn: more than 0.01% and less than 0.6%; P: less than 0.04 %; S: less than 0.04% and preferably more than 0.001%; Al: less than 0.08% and preferably more than 0.005%; Si: less than 0.1 %; a nitrogen content averaged over the thickness of the steel sheet of at least 0.005%; rest iron and unavoidable impurities.
Porzgen discloses overlapping ranges for all of the claimed elements, Para[0026]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Porzgen in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of claim 34.
Claim 35 further limits claim 33 by claiming that the first region has a thickness in the range from 50 µm to 450 µm and the second region has a thickness in the range from 1 µm to 50 µm.
Porzgen discloses that the thickness of the hem area in the is approximately 67 ± 5 µm, Para[0087], and that the thickness of the seam area is in the range of 5 µm to 150 µm, Para[0036]. These ranges overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Porzgen in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of 35.
Claim 36 further limits claim 33 by claiming that the steel sheet has a tensile strength of more than 500 MPa and an elongation at break of more than 5%.
Porzgen discloses that the tensile strength of the steel sheet is at least 800 MPa, particularly preferably at least 900 MPa, with a simultaneous elongation at break in the range of 2% to 10%, Para[0031]. These ranges overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Porzgen in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of 36.
Claim 37 further limits claim 33 by claiming that a gradient of the nitrogen content is present at least in the second region with the nitrogen content decreasing from the second side to the first side of the steel sheet.
Porzgen teaches that when the cold-rolled steel sheet is heated in the presence of the nitrogen donor, a gradient of nitrogen content (Ns) develops in the seam area, with the nitrogen content decreasing from the surface to a core area of the cold-rolled steel sheet. Thus, Porzgen in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of 37.
Claim 38 further limits claim 33 by claiming that the second region has a higher hardness and a higher tensile strength than the first region.
Porzgen discloses that the edge area of the steel sheet has a higher hardness or a higher tensile strength than the core area, Para[0045]. Thus, Porzgen in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of 38.
Claim 39 further limits claim 33 by claiming that the second region has a degree of recrystallization of less than 30% and the first region has a degree of recrystallization of more than 70%.
Porzgen teaches that a particularly sharp demarcation between the selvedge area and the core area is achieved if the steel in the selvedge area has a (re-)crystallization degree of less than 30%, preferably less than 20%, and/or if the core area has a (re-)crystallization degree of more than 70%, preferably more than 80%. Thus, Porzgen in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of 39.
Claim 40 further limits claim 33 by claiming that the barrier layer comprises a sol-gel layer containing at least one of SiO2, TiO2 and ZrO2.
Mennig discloses that thin, transparent layers based on sol-gel systems and nanosize systems can be produced by wet coating processes. DE-A-102004001097 (corresponding to WO-A-2005066388) describes a coating technology by means of which layers having a thickness of only a few μm can be obtained on metal surfaces. Despite this low thickness, the layers are very abrasion-resistant and cannot be scratched by means of, for example, α-alumina-containing scouring sponges, Para[0006]. Mennig discloses SiO2, Para[0018, 0033], and that the thickness of the platelets is preferably less than 1 μm, Para[0028]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the barrier layer coating taught by Mennig in the steel sheet disclosed by Porzgen for abrasion resistance. Thus, Porzgen in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of claim 40.
Claim 41 further limits claim 33 by claiming that the barrier layer has a thickness of less than 1 µm or a coating weight of less than 10 mg/m2.
Mennig discloses that thin, transparent layers based on sol-gel systems and nanosize systems can be produced by wet coating processes. DE-A-102004001097 (corresponding to WO-A-2005066388) describes a coating technology by means of which layers having a thickness of only a few μm can be obtained on metal surfaces. Despite this low thickness, the layers are very abrasion-resistant and cannot be scratched by means of, for example, α-alumina-containing scouring sponges, Para[0006]. Mennig discloses SiO2, Para[0018, 0033], and that the thickness of the platelets is preferably less than 1 μm, Para[0028]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the barrier layer coating taught by Mennig in the steel sheet disclosed by Porzgen for abrasion resistance. Thus, Porzgen in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of claim 41.
Claim 42 further limits claim 33 by claiming that after a forming of the steel sheet, the surface of the second region has a bending radius in the range of 8 mm to 14 mm, wherein the second region is lying on the outside of the bending radius and has a roughness of less than 1.0 µm.
Porzgen and Mennig do not specifically teach the numerical limitations related to the bending radius and roughness, however, Porzgen in view of Mennig discloses a steel that meets the limitations of the claimed composition and is produced using the claimed barrier layer and heating method. 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, see MPEP 2112.01. Thus, Porzgen in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of claim 42.
Claim 43 claims a container made of a steel sheet according to claim 34, wherein the container has at least one convexly deformed portion and the second region of the steel sheet is located on a convex outer side of the deformed portion.
Porzgen discloses that the high-strength packaging steel must simultaneously possess sufficient formability for its intended use as packaging steel, for example in deep-drawing or stretch-drawing processes, so that packaging such as containers can be produced from the flat steel product as intended. canned goods or beverage cans, can be produced, Para[0010]. Thus, Porzgen in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of claim 43.
Claims 25-27, 29-35, 37-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2005056841 of Murakami in view of US2010178491 of Mennig.
Regarding claim 1, Murakami discloses a steel sheet for containers, and manufacturing method thereof in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Murakami teaches a manufacturing method for the steel sheet for containers with the sheet thickness of 0.400 mm that are cold-rolled, and then, simultaneously with or after recrystallization annealing, nitriding is performed, whereby the content increase in N content is no more than 6000 ppm mean across the thickness of the sheet, making the (steel sheet cross-sectional mean in Vickers hardness of 1/8 thickness surface layer) - (steel sheet cross-sectional mean Vickers hardness of 1/4 thickness mid-thickness layer) > 10 points, or (steel sheet cross-sectional mean Vickers hardness of 1/8 thickness surface layer) - (steel sheet cross-sectional mean Vickers hardness of 1/4 thickness mid-thickness layer) > 20 points, Page[4]. Murakami teaches looking at the diffusion of N from the steel sheet surface to the inner area and at the changes in hardness along the sheet cross-section, Page[19]. Murakami also discloses that if nitriding is performed before recrystallization has been completed, recrystallization may be, suppressed and non-recrystallized sheet may remain, Page[19]. Murakami also discloses C: 0.0800% or less. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Murakami is silent regarding the application of a barrier layer to the steel sheet.
Mennig teaches ultra-hard composite layers on metal surfaces and method for producing the same in a similar field of endeavor to the claimed invention. Mennig discloses that thin, transparent layers based on sol-gel systems and nanosize systems can be produced by wet coating processes. DE-A-102004001097 (corresponding to WO-A-2005066388) describes a coating technology by means of which layers having a thickness of only a few μm can be obtained on metal surfaces. Despite this low thickness, the layers are very abrasion-resistant and cannot be scratched by means of, for example, α-alumina-containing scouring sponges, Para[0006]. Mennig discloses SiO2, Para[0018, 0033]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the barrier layer coating taught by Mennig in the steel sheet disclosed by Murakami for abrasion resistance. Thus, Murakami in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of claim 25.
Claim 26 further limits claim 25 by claiming that the steel of the cold-rolled steel sheet has the following composition by weight: C: more than 0.001% and less than 0.1%; Mn: more than 0.01% and less than 0.6%; P: less than 0.04 %; S: less than 0.04%; Al: more than 50 ppm and less than 0.08%; Si: less than 0.1 %; an average nitrogen content by weight after heating of the cold-rolled steel sheet in the nitriding gas atmosphere of at least 0.005%; residual iron and unavoidable impurities.
Murakami discloses overlapping ranges for all the claimed elements, Pages[41-43]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Murakami in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of claim 26.
Claim 27 further limits claim 25 by claiming that the steel of the cold-rolled steel sheet has the following composition by weight: C: more than 0.001% and less than 0.1%; Mn: more than 0.01% and less than 0.6%; P: less than 0.04 %; S: less than 0.04%; Al: more than 50 ppm and less than 0.08%; Si: less than 0.1 %; Cu: less than 0.1 %; Cr: less than 0.1 %; Ni: less than 0.1 %; Ti: less than 0.1% and more than 0.02%; Nb: less than 0.08% and more than 0.01%; Mo: less than 0.08 %; Sn: less than 0.05 %; B: less than 0.01% and more than 0.0005%; N: more than 0.001% and less than 0.016% before the heating and at least 0.005% after the heating of the cold-rolled steel sheet in the nitriding gas atmosphere ; residual iron and unavoidable impurities.
Murakami discloses overlapping ranges for all the claimed elements, Pages[41-43]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Murakami in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of claim 27.
Claim 29 further limits claim 25 by claiming that the steel of the cold-rolled steel sheet has an initial nitrogen content and, during heating of the cold-rolled steel sheet, the average nitrogen content in the near surface region increases to a value averaged over the near surface region being between 50 and 1000 ppm above the initial nitrogen content of the steel, wherein a gradient of the nitrogen content is established with a decreasing nitrogen content from the near surface region on the second side of the steel sheet to the first side of the steel sheet.
Murakami teaches a (N content of 1/8 thickness surface layer) is 20000 ppm or less, Page[43], and an initial N content of 0.030% or less. One of ordinary skill in the art could select within these ranges, such as an initial N content of 0%, and an after annealing N content of 500 ppm. This would result in an increase in the N content of 500 ppm. This lies within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Murakami in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of claim 29.
Claim 30 further limits claim 29 by claiming that during the heating at least temporarily a nitriding of the near surface region on the second side of the cold-rolled steel sheet takes place and during the annealing time at least partially a recrystallization annealing of the cold-rolled steel sheet takes place in a first region on the first side of the steel sheet outside the near surface region, whereas the near surface region on the second side of the steel sheet is not recrystallized.
Murakami teaches diffusion of N from the steel sheet surface to the inner area and at the changes in hardness along the sheet cross-section, Page[19]. Murakami also discloses that if nitriding is performed before recrystallization has been completed, recrystallization may be, suppressed and non-recrystallized sheet may remain, Page[19]. Therefore, Murakami teaches the additional limitations of claim 30. Thus, Murakami in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of claim 30.
Claim 31 further limits claim 25 by claiming that the value by which the recrystallization temperature in the near surface region is increased by incorporation of nitrogen during heating of the steel sheet, is greater than 30°C.
Murakami and Mennig do not specifically teach the numerical limitations related to the increase in recrystallization temperature, however, Murakami in view of Mennig discloses a steel that meets the limitations of the claimed composition and is produced using the claimed barrier layer and heating method. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process., see MPEP 2112.01. Thus, Murakami in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of claim 31.
Claim 32 further limits claim 25 the barrier layer is formed by applying a sol-gel layer on the surface of the first side of the steel sheet.
Murakami is silent on a sol-gel layer.
Mennig discloses that thin, transparent layers based on sol-gel systems and nanosize systems can be produced by wet coating processes. DE-A-102004001097 (corresponding to WO-A-2005066388) describes a coating technology by means of which layers having a thickness of only a few μm can be obtained on metal surfaces. Despite this low thickness, the layers are very abrasion-resistant and cannot be scratched by means of, for example, α-alumina-containing scouring sponges, Para[0006]. Mennig discloses SiO2, Para[0018, 0033]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the barrier layer coating taught by Mennig in the steel sheet disclosed by Murakami for abrasion resistance. Thus, Murakami in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of claim 32.
Regarding claim 33, Murakami teaches a manufacturing method for the steel sheet for containers with the sheet thickness of 0.400 mm that are cold-rolled, and then, simultaneously with or after recrystallization annealing, nitriding is performed, whereby the content increase in N content is no more than 6000 ppm mean across the thickness of the sheet, making the (steel sheet cross-sectional mean in Vickers hardness of 1/8 thickness surface layer) - (steel sheet cross-sectional mean Vickers hardness of 1/4 thickness mid-thickness layer) > 10 points, or (steel sheet cross-sectional mean Vickers hardness of 1/8 thickness surface layer) - (steel sheet cross-sectional mean Vickers hardness of 1/4 thickness mid-thickness layer) > 20 points, Page[4]. Murakami teaches looking at the diffusion of N from the steel sheet surface to the inner area and at the changes in hardness along the sheet cross-section, Page[19]. Murakami also discloses that if nitriding is performed before recrystallization has been completed, recrystallization may be, suppressed and non-recrystallized sheet may remain, Page[19]. The values for thickness and carbon content overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Murakami in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of claim 33.
Claim 34 further limits claim 33 by claiming that the steel sheet has the following composition by weight: C: more than 0.001% and less than 0.1%, preferably less than 0.06%; Mn: more than 0.01% and less than 0.6%; P: less than 0.04 %; S: less than 0.04% and preferably more than 0.001%; Al: less than 0.08% and preferably more than 0.005%; Si: less than 0.1 %; a nitrogen content averaged over the thickness of the steel sheet of at least 0.005%; rest iron and unavoidable impurities.
Murakami discloses overlapping ranges for all the claimed elements, Pages[41-43]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Murakami in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of claim 34.
Claim 35 further limits claim 33 by claiming that the first region has a thickness in the range from 50 µm to 450 µm and the second region has a thickness in the range from 1 µm to 50 µm.
Murakami discloses a thickness of the steel sheet of 0.400mm or less, Page[3], and that the core is ¼ the thickness of the steel sheet, and the surface region is 1/8 the thickness of the steel sheet, Fig.[1]. This would correspond to a thickness of the core of (0.4mm/4) 100 µm or less and a thickness of the surface of (0.4mm/8) 50 µm or less. These overlap with the claimed ranges.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Murakami in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of claim 35.
Claim 37 further limits claim 33 by claiming that a gradient of the nitrogen content is present at least in the second region with the nitrogen content decreasing from the second side to the first side of the steel sheet.
Murakami discloses that the (N content of 1/8 thickness surface layer) -(N content of 1/4 thickness mid-thickness layer) is 10 ppm or greater, Page[3]. Murakami also teaches that the nitrogen distribution or hardness distribution between the top and bottom can be changed by the method of nitriding and by surface treatment before nitriding, as well as by various types of treatment after nitriding, Page[11]. Therefore, Murakami teaches the claimed nitrogen gradient. Thus, Murakami in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of claim 37.
Claim 38 further limits claim 33 by claiming that the second region has a higher hardness and a higher tensile strength than the first region.
Murakami teaches that with the steel sheet according to the exemplary embodiment of the present invention, if the re-cold rolling ratio is of a normal extent, the re-cold rolling rather preferentially hardens the hard surface layer part with a high N content, making the hardness difference between the surface and mid-thickness layers formed in the steel sheet of the present invention more pronounced. This is because the surface layer is more susceptible to work hardening due to the large content of solid-dissolved N and nitrides, while the mid-thickness layer is constrained by the surface layer, so it cannot preferentially deform and does not selectively harden to greatly exceed the hardening of the surface layer, Page[23]. Therefore, Murakami covers the additional limitation of claim 38.
Thus, Murakami in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of claim 38.
Claim 39 further limits claim 33 by claiming that the second region has a degree of recrystallization of less than 30% and the first region has a degree of recrystallization of more than 70%.
Murakami and Mennig do not specifically teach the numerical limitations related to the degree of recrystallization, however, Murakami in view of Mennig discloses a steel that meets the limitations of the claimed composition and is produced using the claimed barrier layer and heating method. 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, see MPEP 2112.01. Thus, Murakami in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of claim 39.
Claim 40 further limits claim 33 by claiming that the barrier layer comprises a sol-gel layer containing at least one of SiO2, TiO2 and ZrO2.
Murakami is silent on a sol-gel barrier layer.
Mennig discloses that thin, transparent layers based on sol-gel systems and nanosize systems can be produced by wet coating processes. DE-A-102004001097 (corresponding to WO-A-2005066388) describes a coating technology by means of which layers having a thickness of only a few μm can be obtained on metal surfaces. Despite this low thickness, the layers are very abrasion-resistant and cannot be scratched by means of, for example, α-alumina-containing scouring sponges, Para[0006]. Mennig discloses SiO2, Para[0018, 0033], and that the thickness of the platelets is preferably less than 1 μm, Para[0028]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the barrier layer coating taught by Mennig in the steel sheet disclosed by Porzgen for abrasion resistance. Thus, Murakami in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of claim 40.
Claim 41 further limits claim 33 by claiming that the barrier layer has a thickness of less than 1 µm or a coating weight of less than 10 mg/m2.
Murakami is silent on a sol-gel barrier layer.
Mennig discloses that thin, transparent layers based on sol-gel systems and nanosize systems can be produced by wet coating processes. DE-A-102004001097 (corresponding to WO-A-2005066388) describes a coating technology by means of which layers having a thickness of only a few μm can be obtained on metal surfaces. Despite this low thickness, the layers are very abrasion-resistant and cannot be scratched by means of, for example, α-alumina-containing scouring sponges, Para[0006]. Mennig discloses SiO2, Para[0018, 0033], and that the thickness of the platelets is preferably less than 1 μm, Para[0028]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the barrier layer coating taught by Mennig in the steel sheet disclosed by Porzgen for abrasion resistance. Thus, Murakami in view of Mennig teaches all limitations of claim 41.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2005056841 of Murakami in view of US2010178491 of Mennig, as cited above, further in view of KR102139134 of Imamura.
Claim 28 further limits claim 25 by claiming that the cold-rolled steel sheet is heated from room temperature to the heating temperature within a predetermined heating time and, after reaching the heating temperature, the cold-rolled steel sheet is kept at the heating temperature for a predetermined annealing time, wherein the heating time is in the range from 1.0 to 300 seconds and the annealing time is in the range from 1.0 seconds to 80 seconds.
Murakami teaches an annealing time of 2-120 seconds, Page[21]. This overlaps with the claimed range of 1-80 seconds. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Murakami does not teach a specific time going from room temperature to the heating temperature.
Imamura discloses a method of producing grain-oriented electrical steel sheet in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Imamura teaches that the average temperature increase rate from room temperature to 400°C is 50°C/s or more, and the time from 400°C to 900°C is 100 seconds or less. This overlaps with the claimed range of 1-300 seconds. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Iwamura teaches that it is to provide a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet having magnetic properties superior to the prior art even in a component system in which an inhibitor is not actively used by appropriately dispersing a trace amount of AlN precipitates generated as a nucleus, Para[0010]. Therefore, it would be obvious to use the heating time taught by Iwamura in the steel sheet taught by Murakami in order to provide a steel sheet having superior magnetic properties. Thus, Murakami in view of Mennig and Iwamura covers all limitations of claim 28.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2005056841 of Murakami in view of US2010178491 of Mennig, as cited above, further in view of CN106661655 of Kaup.
Claim 36 further limits claim 33 by claiming that the steel sheet has a tensile strength of more than 500 MPa and an elongation at break of more than 5%.
Murakami and Mennig do not specifically teach the numerical limitations related to the tensile strength and elongation at break, however, Murakami in view of Mennig discloses a steel that meets the limitations of the claimed composition and is produced using the claimed barrier layer and heating method. 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, see MPEP 2112.01.
Additionally, Kaup teaches a method for producing nitride packaging steel in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kaup It is an object of the present invention to provide a flat steel product (steel sheet or strip) for manufacturing a package which has as high strength as possible with good elongation at break and good deformation characteristics. In particular, when the elongation at break is less than 5%, it is desirable to provide a packaging steel having an intensity of at least 600 MPa. The higher strength of the packaging steel here for the purpose of setting up the use of the packaging steel must also have sufficient deformability at the same time, for example in the deep drawing method and the thinning drawing method, whereby the conventional packaging product can be produced from the flat steel product , Such as cans or cans. The packaging steel present as a flat steel product here should have a normal thickness in the area of thin steel sheets and extremely thin steel plates, which are usually manufactured by cold rolling, Para[0011]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the steel in Murakami obtaining the tensile strength and elongation at break taught by Kaup in order to produce conventional packaging products from the steel product. Thus, Murakami in view on Mennig and Kaup teaches all limitations of claim 36.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2005056841 of Murakami in view of US2010178491 of Mennig, as cited above, further in view of EP3763470 of Carlestam.
Claim 42 further limits claim 33 by claiming that after a forming of the steel sheet, the surface of the second region has a bending radius in the range of 8 mm to 14 mm, wherein the second region is lying on the outside of the bending radius and has a roughness of less than 1.0 µm.
Murakami discloses that the surface roughness can be 0.90µm or less, ABS. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
Murakami and Mennig do not specifically teach the numerical limitations related to the bending radius, however, Murakami in view of Mennig discloses a steel that meets the limitations of the claimed composition and is produced using the claimed barrier layer and heating method. 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, see MPEP 2112.01.
Additionally, Carlestam discloses a method for manufacturing a steel sheet product in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Carlestam discloses using samples from the product batches S1, S2, S3 and S4, with bending radii of 7 mm, 8 mm and 9 mm and with either the top side or the root side being in tension. This overlaps with the claimed range of 8 to 14 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Carlestam teaches that objective is to provide such a wide steel sheet product with an improved surface quality and thickness uniformity, Para[0004]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the steel sheet of Murakami and Mennig achieving the bending radius disclosed by Carlestam in order to provide a steel sheet with improved surface quality and uniform thickness. Thus, Murakami in view of Mennig and Carlestam covers all limitations of claim 42.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2005056841 of Murakami in view of US2010178491 of Mennig, as cited above, further in view of TW201623654 of Saito.
Claim 43 claims a container made of a steel sheet according to claim 34, wherein the container has at least one convexly deformed portion and the second region of the steel sheet is located on a convex outer side of the deformed portion.
Murakami teaches a container, Page[1]. Murakami does not specifically teach a convex outer side.
Saito teaches a steel sheet for cans and method for manufacturing steel sheet for cans in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Saito discloses that in order to compensate for the strength of the can body after the thinning, the case where the can body portion is subjected to the convex corrugation process or the can body portion is formed into a geometrically shaped can is increased. The shaped can of the two-piece can is processed by punching or shrinking, and after the forming with a high degree of processing is performed, the can body is processed, so that the formability of the steel sheet is required to be high, Page[1]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the steel of Murakami in a convex corrugation process to make a container as taught by Saito because the steel of Murakami is highly formable while maintaining its tensile strength. Thus, Murakami in view of Mennig and Saito covers all limitations of claim 43.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights