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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/17/2024. These drawings are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 12/29/2025 is accepted, but pages 2-9 of both JP H10-60592 and JP H10-237549 are blank.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 8 are as originally filed, Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9-11 are currently amended, and Claims 12-20 are new.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 10, an article such as “a” or “the” should be placed before “thickness.”
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 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 claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The examiner does not contend that the following rejections will completely address issues of indefiniteness and cautions that any amendments to the claims should conform to current U.S. practice to eliminate further rejections under this statute.
Claim 1 does not recite any active steps beyond the preamble. Acid pickling, cold rolling, and tinplating are not recited within the body of the claim, and the continuous annealing has no further limitations in the claim.
In Claim 1, lines 4 and 5, it is not clear how “a steel smelting and continuous casting process” relates to the “steel smelting and continuous casting” recited in lines 1 and 2.
In Claim 1, line 10, there is no recitation on “an intermediate billet” is formed.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the continuous annealing and temper rolling process" in lines 13 and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first stand tempera mill" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second stand temper mill" in lines 21 and 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a plate blank” in line 3. It is unclear whether this plate blank is different or the same as the one recited in Claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the hot-rolled steel coil" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a hot-rolled steel coil” in line 2. It is unclear whether this hot-rolled steel coil is the same or different as the one recited in Claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a chilled coil” in line 2. It is unclear whether this chilled coil is the same or different as the one recited in Claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “an annealed steel coil” in line 2. It is unclear whether this annealed steel coil is the same or different as the one recited in Claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a plate blank” in line 3. It is unclear whether this plate blank is different or the same as the one recited in Claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a hot-rolled steel coil” in line 2. It is unclear whether this hot-rolled steel coil is the same or different as the one recited in Claim 1.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a chilled coil” in line 2. It is unclear whether this chilled coil is the same or different as the one recited in Claim 1.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “an annealed steel coil” in line 2. It is unclear whether this annealed steel coil is the same or different as the one recited in Claim 1.
Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 115341155 A.
CN 101906570 A (CN ‘570) teaches a tin-plated substrate for deep-drawing food cans [0003]. The composition is as follows with respect to Claim 11:
Element %
Claim 1
CN ‘570
C
0.020 - 0.040
≤ 0.04
Mn
0.15 - 0.25
0.20 ~ 0.25
Si
≤ 0.03
≤ 0.02
P
≤ 0.015
≤ 0.02
S
≤ 0.010
≤ 0.018
Al
0.03 ~ 0.06
0.005 ~ 0.040
N
≤ 0.0030
< 0.005
0.02 + 11.57N
≥ Al
meets claimed range
However, CN ‘570 does not teach adopting the method as recited in Claim 1. Even though product-by-process claims are limited and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or as obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP § 2113.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: CN ‘570 teaches converter smelting, RH vacuum treatment [0016] and continuous casting [0017]. Hot rolling is initially 1100-1150 °C and final rolling is 890 ± 10°C [0020]. The billet after casting is 180 mm [0039] and the hot-rolled thickness is 4 mm [0041]. However, CN ‘570 does not teach the soaking, aging, temper, and speed conditions as recited in Claim 1.
ES 2008353 A6 (ES ‘353) teaches a steel sheet or strip for drawn and deep-drawn cans [0001] with the following composition with respect to Claim 1 [0015]:
Element %
Claim 1
ES ‘353
C
0.020 - 0.040
0.004 – 0.06
Mn
0.15 - 0.25
0.05 – 0.60
Si
≤ 0.03
≤ 0.02
P
≤ 0.015
≤ 0.02
S
≤ 0.010
≤ 0.018
Al
0.03 ~ 0.06
0.005 – 0.100
N
≤ 0.0030
< 0.007
0.02 + 11.57N
≥ Al
meets claimed range
ES ‘353 teaches continuous annealing [0062] and tempering [0064] but does not teach the soaking, aging, temper, and speed conditions as recited in Claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP H06-41681 A (JP ‘681) teaches a steel sheet for drawn and wall ironed can [0001]. EP 1 022 347 A1 teaches a method for manufacturing a blackplate for tinplate and tin-free steel by continuous annealing (abstract). CN 115537666 A teaches a 450MPa-level high-strength steel with different micro-tissue and preparation method (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 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 D. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/Tima M. McGuthry-Banks/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights