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/KR2022/019505 12/02/2022 with FOREIGN APPLICATIONS KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2021-0180819 12/16/2021.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 remain for examination, wherein claims 1 and 7 are independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: proper space should be added between “of550oC” on line 11 of the instant claim 7. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nicholas et al (WO 2022184580 A1, with on-line translation, thereafter WO’580) in view of Tomida et al (US-PG-pub 2008/0202639 A1, thereafter PG’639).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, WO’580 teaches a steel sheet manufactured by hot rolling of the pre-product to form a hot-rolled flat steel product with a final hot-rolling temperature of between 850 and 980°C (Abstract and claims and step b)-d) of WO’580), which reads on the hot-rolled steel sheet as claimed in the instant claims. The comparison between the claimed alloy composition ranges and the example #N in table on page 30 of WO’580 is listed in following table. All of the essential alloy composition ranges disclosed by the example #N in table on page 30 of WO’580 are within the claimed alloy composition ranges. WO’580 teaches adjusting C in range 0.02-0.2 (abstract, claims, last paragraph on page 18 of WO’580), which overlapping the claimed C range. Being close and/or overlapping in C 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 Si from the disclosing of WO’580 since WO’580 teaches the same hot-rolled steel sheet as claimed throughout whole disclosing range. The [Relational expression 1] and [Relational expression 2] in the instant claims are recognized as general formula fully depended on the amount of alloy elements Ti, Nb, Mo (expression 1) or C, Ti, Nb, Mo (expression 2) in the alloy. It is well settled that there is no invention in the discovery of a general formula if it covers a composition described in the prior art. In re Cooper and Foley 1943 C.D.357, 553 O.G.177; 57 USPQ 117, Taklatwalla v. Marburg. 620 O.G.685, 1949 C.D.77, and In re Pilling, 403 O.G.513, 44 F(2) 878, 1931 C.D.75. In the instant case, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the selection of the proportions of C, Ti, Nb, and Mo from WO’580 in order to meet the claimed equation would appear to require no more than routine investigation by those ordinary skilled in the art. In re Austin, et al., 149 USPQ 685, 688. WO’580 teaches the same process steps including reheating, hot rolling, and coiling as claimed in the instant claim 7. The process parameters disclosed by WO’580 (cl.10 of WO’580) overlap the claimed process parameters as claimed in the instant claim 7, which 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 process steps parameters from the disclosing of WO’580 since WO’580 teaches the same hot-rolled steel sheet as claimed throughout whole disclosing range.
Element
From instant Claims 1 and 7 (wt%)
Example #N in table on page 30 of WO’580 (wt %)
within range
(wi %)
C
0.05-0.1
0.049
Adjusting in range:
0.02-0.20
0.049 close to low limit of 0.05
Overlapping 0.05-0.1
Si
0.1 or less
0.050
0.050
Mn
1.5-1.9
1.60
1.60
Ti
0.05-0.15
0.071
0.071
Nb
0.03-0.1
0.069
0.069
Mo
0.03-0.1
0.068
0.068
P
>0 - 0.02
0.003
0.003
S
>0 - 0.02
0.004
0.004
N
>0 - 0.01
0.004
0.004
Fe
Balance + impurities
Balance + impurities
Balance + impurities
Formula (1)
0.002-0.004
About 0.0029
About 0.0029
Formula (2)
0.002-0.006
About 0.0012
--
General formula
From claim 1
Microstructure (area%)
90 or more
99 table on page 33 of WO’580
99
Grain size of F (mm)
15 or less
--
1.2-7 (PG’639)
Carbide size (nm)
20 or less
10 or less (claims of WO’580)
10 or less
Carbide (Ti, Nb, Mo) amount (wt%)
0.05
--
No more than 1 vol% (PG’639)
overlapping
From claim 7
From WO’580
Overlapping range
Reheating T (oC)
1150-1300
1150-1350 (cl.10 of WO’580)
1150-1300
Finish hot rolling T (oC)
800-950
850-980 (Cl.10 of WO’580)
850-950
Coiling T ((oC)
550-700
400-700 (Cl.10 of WO’580)
550-700
From claim 3
From table on page 33 of WO’580
YS (MPa)
700 or more
722
722
TS (MPa)
750 or more
828
828
EL
15%
15%
15%
Still regarding claim 1, WO’580 does not specify the claimed grain size and carbide density as claimed in the instant claim 1. PG’639 teaches a hot-rolled steel sheet with ferrite phase as main phase and manufacturing process. (Title, abstract and claims of PG’639). PG’639 specify fine ferrite crystal gain size 1.2-7 mm (Abstract, claims, and examples of PG’639), which reads on the claimed grain size of ferrite grain as claimed in the instant claim. PG’639 specify including no more than 1 vol% second phase including carbide (par.[0090] and Figs.4-5 of PG’639), which overlapping the claimed carbide amount as claimed in the instant claim. MPEP 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the grain size of ferrite phase and optimize the amount of carbide as demonstrated by PG’639 for the hot-rolled steel sheet of WO’580 in order to obtain excellent in mechanical strength, workability and thermal stability and suited for use as a raw material in such fields of manufacturing automobiles, household electric appliances and machine structures and of constructing buildings (Abstract and examples of PG’639).
Regarding claim 2, WO’580 indicates including martensite or bainite in the alloy (Page 6, last paragraph of WO’580).
Regarding claim 3, WO’580 provides properties for the Example #N in table on page 33 of WO’580, which reads on the claimed properties in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’580 in view of PG’639 and further in view of KITAZAWA MAKOTO et al (JP 2004292922 A, with on-line translation, thereafter JP’922).
Regarding claim 4, WO’580 in view of PG’639 does not specify pipe application as claimed in the instant claim. JP’922 teaches a high tensile strength steel pipe of excellent combined secondary workability (Abstract and claims of JP’922) with precipitated carbides reinforced ferrite grains (par.[0014]-[0015] of JP922). All of the essential alloy composition ranges disclosed by JP’922 (Abstract and claims of JP’922) overlaps the claimed alloy composition ranges. MPEP 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply ferrite steel for pipe application as demonstrated by JP’922 for the hot-rolled steel sheet of WO’580 in view of PG’639 in order to obtain a high tensile strength steel pipe of excellent combined secondary workability (Abstract and claims of JP’922).
Regarding claims 5-6, the claimed properties in the instant claims fully depended on the alloy composition, microstructure, and manufacturing process. WO’580 in view of PG’639 and JP’922 teaches the same hot-rolled steel sheet with the similar composition, the similar carbides distribution and the same steel pipe application. The claimed properties, such as YS, TS, EL (cl.5) and deviation of hardness (cl.6) would be highly expected for the steel pipe of WO’580 in view of PG’639 and JP’922. MPEP 2112 01 and 2145 II. Actually, JP’922 provides example having TS over 860 MPa (table 2 of JP’922).
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights