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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II, claims 14-20, in the reply filed on 17 June 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)). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 17 June 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification paragraphs 40-41 is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 does not set forth the full term for the abbreviation “PHS” (press hardening steel). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 2021/0187906).
Considering claim 14, Lu teaches a press-hardened steel assembly comprising a core layer and first surface layer (abstract). The assembly comprises a core of a first sheet and a second steel sheet thereon (Paragraph 8). The core comprises a first steel layer having a composition comprising 0.01-6 wt.% Cr (Paragraph 17) and may be coated with an Al-Si coating (Paragraph 20). The second steel may have a composition of 0.01-6 wt.% Cr (Paragraph 17) and may not require a coating (Paragraph 100). The press-hardened steel may be welded at the edges (Paragraph 25) (e.g. comprises a weld seem therebetween).
While not expressly teaching a singular example of the claimed component this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in view of the teachings of Lu as this is considered a combination of conventionally known steel sheets with compositions overlapping (e.g. one steel sheet may optionally have a greater Cr content than another) and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Further, the composition of Cr between the steel sheets disclosed by Lu overlap the claimed concentration difference and the courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside of those disclosed in the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 15, Lu teaches where the second steel composition comprises Fe and C content of about 0.2-0.45 wt.%, Mn content of about 0.5-4.5 wt.%, a Cr content of about 0.01-6 wt.%, and a Si content of about 0-3 wt.% (Paragraph 17). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 16, Lu teaches where the Nb content may be about 0-0.8 wt.% (Paragraph 97), the V content may be about 0-0.8 wt.% (Paragraph 98), and a Ni content of about 0-5 wt.% (Paragraph 99). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 17, Lu teaches where the Cr content is about 0.01-6 wt.% and Si content is about 0-3 wt.% (Paragraph 17) overlapping the claimed ratio. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claims 18-19, Lu is silent regarding the claimed Cr-enriched carbides, Al and Cr content in the weld, and microstructure. However, as outlined above, Lu teaches a substantially identical welded component of materials overlapping that which is claimed and therefore these features are expected to be present after pressing as substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to behave the same, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2112. Additionally, Lu teaches where the press-hardened steel assembly comprises greater than or equal to 90 vol.% martensite (Paragraph 8). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 20, Lu teaches where the assembly may be a B pillar and door components (Paragraph 46).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Breuer et al. (US 2015/0306702) and Haouas (US 2021/0163080) teach steel laminates with compositions overlapping that which is claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH DUMBRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 AM - 3:30 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, 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.
SETH DUMBRIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/SETH DUMBRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights