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
Applicant’s claim to foreign priority in application no. KR10-2021-0176999, filed December 10, 2021, is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and Claim 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the fine precipitates comprise nitride or carbide of at least” should be “the fine precipitates comprise nitrides or carbides of at least”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1, and dependent Claims 2-9, and Claim 10, and dependent Claims 11-19, 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 “fine precipitates” in Claim 1 and Claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fine” 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoo (cited by Applicant in IDS filed June 10, 2024, KR 20190001493 A, US 2021147955 A1 used as English equivalent).
Regarding Claim 1 and Claim 10, Yoo discloses a material for hot stamping (Abstract), the material comprising:
Element
Claim 1 (wt%)
Hayashi (Abstract)
Hayashi (Table 1)
C
0.19-0.25
0.20-0.50
0.23
Si
0.1-0.6
0.050-1
0.25
Mn
0.8-1.6
0.10-2.5
1.25
P
0-0.03
0-0.015
0.011
S
0-0.015
0-0.005
0.003
Cr
0.1-0.6
0.05-1.00
0.21
B
0.001-0.005
0.001-0.009
0.0031
Ti, Nb and/or V
0-0.01 total
0.01-0.09 Ti
0.03
Balance
Fe + impurities
Fe + impurities
Fe + impurities
Yoo fails to disclose the claimed precipitate features; however, the composition and process of Yoo is substantially identical to the instant invention.
Process step
Instant invention
citation
Yoo, working Example 2
citation
Slab reheating temperature
1000C or higher, pref. 1200-1250C
Pg. 18, line 30 – Pg. 19, line 17
1200C
[0081], [0060]
Hot rolling finish temperature
840-920C
Pg. 19, lines 18-21
885C
Table 2, [0062]
Coiling temperature
about 700 to about 780C
Pg. 20, lines 16-17
720C
Table 2, [0064]
Pickling and cold rolling reduction
30-70%, but not limited thereto
Pg. 20, lines 16-17
60-80%
[0067]
Annealing temperature
700C or higher
Pg. 21, lines 4-6
765C
Table 2, [0070]
Hot-dipping temperature
650-700C
Pg. 21, lines 13-15
660C
[0082], [0072]
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the steel of Yoo would comprise the claimed precipitate features. 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, 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). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 2 and Claim 11, Yoo discloses wherein the material after hot stamping exhibits a tensile strength of 1400MPa or greater which reads on the claimed range of 1350MPa or greater, and a bending angle of 50 degrees or greater, as claimed (para. [0077]; [0088]; Table 4, see bending angles; 68.7 degrees for example 2).
Yoo is silent towards the amount of activated hydrogen; however, the composition and processing of Yoo is identical to the instant invention, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that material of Yoo to behave as claimed after hot stamping and comprise the claimed features and the claimed amount of activated hydrogen. Further, the limitations are directed to an intended use of the material, and the limitations and structure of the material have been met by Yoo because Yoo discloses the claimed composition and instant processing.
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, 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). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claims 4-9 and Claims 12-19, Yoo is silent towards the claimed precipitate features; however, the composition and processing of Yoo is identical to the instant invention, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the material of Yoo would comprise the claimed precipitate features including the claimed diameters, claimed number of precipitates, and the claimed number variation coefficients, respectively.
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, 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). See MPEP 2112.01.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hayashi (cited by Applicant in IDS filed June 10, 2024, JP 2005068548 A, English Machine translation provided): teaches a material comprising:
Element
Claim 1 (wt%)
Hayashi
Citation
C
0.19-0.25
0.01-0.30
Abstract
Si
0.1-0.6
0-2
Abstract
Mn
0.8-1.6
0.01-3
Abstract
P
0-0.03
0-0.1
Abstract
S
0-0.015
0-0.05
Abstract
Cr
0.1-0.6
0.001-3*
[0031]
B
0.001-0.005
0.0002-0.1
[0037]
Ti, Nb and/or V
0-0.01
0.001-3*
[0029]-[0030]; [0032]
Balance
Fe + impurities
Fe + impurities
Abstract
*0.001-3% total of Cr, Nb, V and/or Ti (see Abstract)
Hayashi further teaches nitrides or carbides of Ti, Nb and V which trap hydrogen (para. [0015]-[0016]; [0020]; [0049]), comprise a grain size of 1nm to 5um (Abstract), and a mean diameter variation coefficient 1.0 or less (para. [0018]; see Table 2-1, 2-2 and 2-3 values ranging from 0.35-0.8).
Hayashi additionally discloses a method including a reheating temperature of 1100-1300C, hot rolling at 950C or lower, cooling to and coiling at 700C or less, pickling and cold rolling at 30-80% reduction, and annealing from 600-950C (para. [0040]-[0043]; [0046]-[0049]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 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, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)-272-3458. 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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights