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 .
Claim Status
Applicants’ January 08, 2025 response to the October 09, 2025 Non-Final Rejection is acknowledged. Claims 1-6 are pending, claim 1 is independent. Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im et al. (KR20200036759A, herein referring to patent family member EP 3859041 A1 for translation), hereinafter Im (of record in the application).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4 and 6, Im teaches a cold-rolled steel sheet including by weight the composition shown in Table 1 below ([0009]-[0011]) and a microstructure in area fraction of 3-7% retained austenite, 5-15% fresh martensite, 5% or less ferrite and a balance of bainite or tempered martensite ([0009]), a tensile strength of 1180 MPa or more, a yield ratio of 0.65-0.85 (calculates to yield strength of 767 MPa or more), hole expansion ratio of 25% or more and an elongation of 5-13% ([0012]) and further teaches a hot-dip zinc plating layer on a surface of the cold-rolled steel sheet ([0013]). Im does not specifically teach at least one of MC, M(C,N), and their composite precipitates (M=Nb, Ti, Si, Cr, Mo, Fe) with average size of ≤ 20nm in a fraction of 50/µm2 or more, nor the elongation is total elongation or uniform elongation (total of 5% or more and uniform of 3% or more), nor a hardness (HvFZ) of 400-650 Hv in a fusion zone (collectively hereafter “the claimed properties”).
Table 1 (weight%)
Instant claim 1
Im [0009]-[0011]
C
0.10-0.20
0.17-0.21
Si
0.05-0.495
0.3-0.8
Al
0.01-0.18
0.01-0.3
Mn
2.4-3.5
2.7-3.3
Cr
0.05-0.8
0.3-0.7
Mo
0.05-0.8
Optional ≤ 0.1
B
0.0001-0.003
0.001-0.003
Nb
0.005-0.07
Optional ≤ 0.03
Ti
0.005-0.07
0.01-0.03
Fe & unavoidable impurities
remainder
balance
Expression 1:
2301[C]+287[Mn]+1533Nb+228[Cr]-71[Si]-84.1[Al]
1120-1380
Calculates to 1152 to 1614
Expression 2: [C]+[Si]/30+[Mn]/20
0.25-0.36
Calculates to 0.32 to 0.40
Expression 3: Expression 1/Expression 2
3420-4360
Calculates to 2880 to 5044
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements including calculated relational expressions (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have expected substantially identical materials (as discussed above) treated in a substantially identical manner as applicants to have substantially identical properties (including the claimed properties). Applicant teaches the processing shown above in Table 2 (claim 7). Im teaches processing ranges (Table 2 above, [0015]) that overlap those taught by applicant; where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Given substantially identical materials and processing parameters, (as discussed above), one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have expected the cold-rolled steel sheet of Im to have substantially identical properties to that of applicant; including the claimed properties, meeting applicant’s claimed requirements. Applicant teaches the process below in Table 2 (claim 7) produces the product with the claimed properties. Im teaches processing ranges (Table 2 below from [0015] and Im Table 3) that overlap those taught by applicant, where ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Table 2
Instant claim 7 & Table 2
Im [0015]; Table 3
Heat the slab
Heat to 1150-1250⁰C
Finish roll to A3+50⁰C to A3+160⁰C
(Table 2 shows inventive A3 values of 796-809⁰C, i.e. range of 846-969⁰C)
Finish roll to 900-980⁰C
Cool to Ms+100⁰C to Ms+300⁰C
(Table 2 shows inventive Ms values of 386-392⁰C; i.e. range of 486-692⁰C)
Cool at 10-100⁰C/s to coiling, coil at 500-700⁰C; it is reasonable to one of ordinary skill in the art that given overlapping compositions the Ms values of Im would also be about 390⁰CC
Coil
Cold-roll
Cold roll at 30-60^ reduction
Continuously anneal within SS of 800-86⁰C
Continuously anneal within Ae3+30⁰C to Ae3+80⁰C; Table 3 shows inventive SS of 840 and 848⁰C (i.e. Ae3 could be 760-818)
Primary cooling <10⁰C/s to SCS of 450-650⁰C
Table 3 shows inventive SCS of 607 and 612⁰C at 4.0 and 3.6 ⁰C/s
Secondary cooling ≥10⁰C/s to RCS of 300-390⁰C
Table 3 shows inventive RCS of 302 and 295⁰C at 17.6 and 16.1 ⁰C/s
Reheat to RHS of 400-540⁰C
Table 3 shows RHS inventive of 416 and 415⁰C
Expression 4: SS-A3 ≥5⁰C
Calculates to +30 to +80⁰C
Expression 5: -30⁰C ≥ Ms-RCS ≥ 110⁰C
Inventive examples in Table 3 and approximate Ms calculate to ~90 to ~100⁰C
Expression 6: -30⁰C ≥ RHS-RCS ≥ 250⁰C
Table 3 inventive examples calculate to 120⁰C & 114⁰C
The examiner has provided a basis in technical reasoning that the processing and compositions are substantially identical in support of the determination that the inherent characteristic of the claimed properties necessarily flows from the teachings of Im (MPEP 2112 IV).
As Im teaches a substantially identical cold-rolled steel sheet, produced by a substantially identical process as that which applicant claims and discloses in their specification as producing the claimed properties, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would expect the cold-rolled steel sheet of Im to possess the claimed properties, absent an objective showing (MPEP 2112). The PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product, whether the rejection is based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. 102 or prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same (MPEP 2112 V).
Regarding claim 2, Im teaches each limitation of claim 1 as discussed above, and further teaches the steel sheet further comprises in weight%: ≤0.04% P, ≤ 0.02% S, ≤0.01% N (total ≤0.07%) ([0009]). Regarding Sb, Mg, Sn, Zn and Pb, Im is silent to the presence of these elements, such that they are not considered to be present in an appreciable amount, also note examples. If elements are not listed it is understood to one of ordinary skill in the art that it is reasonable that they are not present. Therefore the elements are considered to be present in an amount within, or at least overlapping, applicant’s claimed proportions (which include 0%).
With regards to “tramp elements”, this is product-by-process language, which provides no structural limitations beyond that of a impurities, which is addressed above. The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by process claims over the prior art (MPEP 2113 I). In this instance, no additional structure is implied beyond “impurities”, addressed above. The burden therefore shifts to applicant to come forward with a non obvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product (MPEP 2113 II).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Regarding claim 5, Im teaches each limitation of claims 1 and 4 as discussed above, and further teaches maximum LME cracks of inventive examples of 66 and 69 microns (Table 4; [0064]; [0043]). One of ordinary skill in the art reasonably understand an average length of LME cracks is at most the maximum LME crack length. The maximum of Im overlaps the average claimed length of a maximum value, therefore, the average also overlaps. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments and related arguments (Pg. 7) filed January 08, 2026, with respect to objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The October 09, 2025 objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed January 08, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant generally asserts good properties reliant on expressions 1-3 and no specific evidence is referenced or proffered, and as such there is no persuasive argument that any alleged difference in results are unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. (MPEP 716.02 (b)). Applicant further refers to specific examples, which is not persuasive as the examiner did not rely upon any specific examples in their rejection. Further, the prior art is prior art for all it teaches (MPEP 2158), including the overlapping proportions. Applicant additionally alleges that the prior art is not concerned with the problem they solve, which is not persuasive because “[t]he reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant” (MPEP 2144 IV).
For these reasons, and for those reasons as advanced in the rejections above, the present claims are not found to distinguish over the prior art and this action is made FINAL.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KATHERINE CHRISTY whose telephone number is (303)297-4363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-4pm MT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/KATHERINE A CHRISTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784