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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 08/06/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 6-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 1-5 are presented for this examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 05/30/2024 and 09/10/2025 and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IM (WO2021020789 using US20220349019 as English Translation) in view of Choi (WO2022124609 using US20240026483 as English Translation).
As for claims 1-5, IM discloses a high strength steel sheet formed by cold rolling, comprising overlapping or close elemental composition, microstructure and mechanical properties ([0023]) as illustrated in Table 1 below. The high strength steel sheet has an alloyed hot dip galvanized layer formed on the surface of the cold rolled high strength steel sheet as required by instant claim 5. [0093]
Table 1
Element
Applicant
(weight %)
IM et al.
(weight %)
Overlap
(weight %)
C
0.14-0.16
0.12-0.17
0.14-0.16
Si
0.3-0.6
0.3-0.8
0.3-0.6
Al
0.01-0.3
0.01-0.3
0.01-0.3
Mn
2.6-3
2.5-3
2.6-3
Cr
0.01-0.25
0.4-1.1
0.4 is close to 0.25
Mo
0.15-0.4
<=0.3
0.15-0.3
B
0.0001-0.005
0.001-0.003
0.001-0.003
Nb
0.001-0.05
0.01-0.03
0.01-0.03
Ti
0.001-0.05
0.01-0.03
0.01-0.03
P
<=0.04
<=0.04
<=0.04
S
<=0.01
<=0.01
<=0.01
N
<=0.01
<=0.01
<=0.01
RA (%)
1-5
1-4
1-4
Fresh martensite
(%)
10-25
10-20
10-20
Bainite
(%)
<=20
1-39
1-20
TM (%)
55-70
50-70
55-70
Ferrite (%)
<=5
<=5
<=5
Cu (Claim 2)
<=0.1
<=0.1
<=0.1
V (Claim 3)
<=0.05
<=0.03
<=0.03
TS (Claim 4)
1180-1350
>=1180
1180-1350
YS(Claim 4)
740-980
740-980
740-980
Elongation
(Claim 4)
>=8
7-14
8-14
Hole Expandability (Claim 4)
>=20
>=25
>=25
With respect to instant claim 1 required Relational Expression (1), 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 absence of evidence to the contrary, the selection of the proportions of elements 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.
With respect to instant claim 1 required Relational Expression (2) , Im explicitly discloses Equation (1) ([0053]) ([C]+([Si]+[Al])/5) <=0.35% which is equivalent to (5[C]+([Si]+[Al]))<=1.75%. Since Al upper limit is 0.3%, (5[C]+([Si]+1/2x[Al]))<=1.5% is expected.
With respect to claimed Cr range, first, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I. In the instant case, Cr at 0.4% is considered close to upper limit of 0.25% absent criticality of claimed Cr range.
Second, IM merely discloses Cr maybe 0.4-1.1%. ([0040]) Term “maybe” suggests Cr is not required to be 0.4-1.1.
Third, Choi discloses a high strength hot dip galvanized steel sheet having similar compositions, microstructure as IM. Choi explicitly discloses Cr amount can be optimized to balance high strength and elongation.([0047])
If a particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, then the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said parameter might be characterized as routine experimentation.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have reduced Cr from 0.4% to claimed ranges as evidenced by Choi, in the cold rolled steel sheet of IM in order to achieve a balance of strength and elongation. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
IM also does not explicitly disclose AE value which is an inherent property due to similar steel sheet compositions, microstructure, YS, TS, Elongation and hole expandability according to MPEP 2112.01.
When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985), In the instant case, IM in view of Choi discloses same cold rolled steel sheet with same compositions, same microstructure, same YS, TS, Elongation and hole expandability. The cold rolled steel sheet of IM in view of Choi is expected to have similar AE value absent evidence of the contrary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNY R WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5515. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 on (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 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.
/JENNY R WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights