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 .
Response to Arguments
The claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Tobata et al. (US 2025/0223662) is disqualified as prior art because the foreign priority date of the instant application precedes that of Tobata. This argument is not persuasive because Applicant has not perfected the foreign priority date. Tobata, therefore, has not been disqualified as prior art.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Applicant also argues Nishio does not teach or suggest the claimed invention because Nishio does not teach or suggest the claimed bending-bending-back deformation step for the claimed hot rolling step. Nishio is not relied upon to teach these aspects of the claimed invention. Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tobata et al. (US 2025/0223662) in view of Nishio et al. (US 2022/0333221).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, and 7-8, Tobata discloses a cold-rolled steel sheet having the following composition, as compared to the claimed composition (¶ 17):
Claims 1&7
Tobata (¶ 17)
C
0.140%-0.400%
0.030%-0.500%
Si
≤1.00%
0.50%-2.50%
Mn
1.30%-4.00%
1.50%-5.00%
P
≤0.100%
≤0.100%
S
≤0.010%
≤0.0200%
Al
≤0.100%
≤1.00%
N
≤0.0100%
≤0.0100%
Ti
≤0.050%
≤0.200%
Nb
≤0.050%
≤0.200%
V
≤0.50%
≤0.200%
Cu
≤1.00%
≤1.00%
Ni
≤1.00%
≤1.00%
Cr
≤1.00%
≤1.00%
Mo
≤0.50%
≤1.00%
B
≤0.0100%
≤0.0100%
Ca
≤0.0100%
≤0.0100%
Mg
≤0.0100%
≤0.0100%
REM
≤0.0500%
≤0.0100%
Bi
≤0.050%
≤0.200%
Fe
Remainder
Remainder
Claims 3&8 (one or more)
Ti
0.001%-0.050%
0.001%-0.100% (¶ 34)
Nb
0.001%-0.050%
0.001%-0.100% (¶ 34)
V
0.01%-0.50%
0.001%-0.100% (¶ 34)
Cu
0.01%-1.00%
0.01%-1.00% (¶ 38)
Ni
0.01%-1.00%
0.01%-1.00% (¶ 36)
Cr
0.01%-1.00%
0.01%-1.00% (¶ 36)
Mo
0.01%-0.50%
0.01%-1.00% (¶ 36)
B
0.0001%-0.0100%
0.0003%-0.010% (35)
Ca
0.0001%-0.0100%
0.0005%-0.0100% (¶ 41)
Mg
0.0001%-0.0100%
0.0005%-0.0100% (¶ 41)
REM
0.0005%-0.0500%
0.0005%-0.0100% (¶ 41)
Bi
0.0005%-0.050%
0.001%-0.200% (¶ 44)
Microstructure (claims 1&7)
r-Austenite
1.0%-8.0%
3%-15% (¶ 48)
t-Martensite
≥80.0%
≥80.0% (¶¶ 47&52 martensite & t-martensite)
Ferrite & Bainite
≤15.0%
≤10% (¶ 50)
Martensite
≤5.0%
≥80.0% (¶¶ 47&52 martensite & t-martensite)
The microstructure phases are measured at a depth at ¼ sheet thickness from the surface (¶ 51). The prior art steel composition and microstructure overlap the claimed steel composition and microstructure, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. While Tobata does not explicitly differentiate between tempered martensite and martensite, the claimed ratio is expected to be present in the prior art steel based on the similar manufacturing processes, as will be discussed below. Tobata teaches the prior austenite grain size is 20 μm or less (¶ 53), which overlaps the claimed grain size, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Tobata does not expressly disclose the number density of retained austensite on prior austenite grain boundaries. However, given the similar manufacturing process, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed number density to be present in Tobata. The claimed manufacturing process of claim 7 is compared to the process of Tobata:
Claim 7
Tobata
Cooling and heating a cast slab having the composition of claim 1 to 1,100°C or higher and hot rolling
Heating a slab to 1,100°C or higher, followed by hot rolling (¶ 61). Since the slab is cast (¶ 61), it inherently must have been cooled from the molten state.
Coiling at 550°C or lower
Coiling at 350°C-650°C (¶ 61)
Descaling followed by cold rolling
Pickling (¶ 62) and cold rolling (¶ 63)
Annealing at a soaking temperature of 820°C-880°C with an average heating rate slower than 10°C/s above 700°C for 30-200 seconds
Annealing at a temperature of 750°C-950°C for 10-1000 seconds (¶¶ 65-66)
Bending-Bending back deformation at 90° or more within the range of 700°C -800°C one or more times using a roll with a radius of 850 mm or less while applying a tension of 3 kN or more
Bending-unbending with a roll having a radius of 800 mm or less 1-15 times within the annealing temperature of 750°C-950°C (¶ 67)
Bending-Bending back deformation at 90° or more within the range of 50°C -350°C one or more times using a roll with a radius of 850 mm or less while applying a tension of 3 kN or more
Bending-unbending with a rolling having a radius of 800 mm or less 1-15 times within a temperature of the cooling stop temperature to the Ms temperature (¶ 74). The cooling stop is in the range of 100°C to the Ms-80°C (¶ 76), and the Ms temperature is ~320°C (see Table 3). The applied tension is 5-100 MPa (74).
Cooling at a rate of 5°C/s or faster between 700°C-600°C and 450°C-350°C
Cooling rate between 700°C-600°C is at least 20°C/s (¶ 69), cooling rate between 499°C-Ms temperature is at least 20°C/s (¶ 70)
Tempering at 200°C-350°C for at least 1 second
Tempering at cooling stop temperature to 450°C for 10-1000 seconds (¶¶ 77-78)
Tobata teaches the bending and unbending is performed by bending the steel in one direction and then cancelling the bend (¶ 68), which implies a bending degree of 180°. Tobata teaches a tension applied during bending/unbending is 5-100 MPa (¶ 74). Based on a steel sheet width of 25 mm (¶ 89) and a steel sheet thickness of 0.6-2.2 mm (¶ 85), the force applied is equivalent to 75 N to 5.5 kN. While Tobata does not expressly disclose a tension for the first bending-unbending treatment, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the tension at this step to be similar to the tension at the second bending-unbending treatment since these steps are being performed continuously on a steel sheet, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Tobata does not expressly disclose a heating rate to the annealing temperature. Nishio teaches a steel sheet having a similar composition and manufacturing process to that of Tobata (¶¶ 22-32). Nishio teaches a heating rate of 1-50 °C/s within the temperature range of 550°C -750°C to reach the annealing temperature (¶ 149). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt the heating rate taught by Nishio in the process of Tobata because Nishio teaches this heating rate ensures improved strength, hole expandability, and bendability (¶ 150). The process parameters of the prior art combination are substantially similar to, and overlap, the claimed process parameters, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Accordingly, because the process of the prior art combination is substantially similar to the claimed process which is used to make the claimed product, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the steel sheet of the prior art combination to exhibit the same number density of retained austenite at prior austenite grain boundaries as claimed, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 2, Tobata teaches the steel has a tensile strength of at least 1180 MPa (¶15) and a R/t V-block bend ratio of 6.0 or less (¶ 90). This overlaps the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Nishio teaches a uniform elongation of 5% or more (¶ 33). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the steel sheet of the prior art combination to exhibit the claimed properties given the substantial similarities in composition and manufacturing processing parameters, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claims 5-6, Tobata teaches forming a hot-dip galvanizing or galvannealing layer on the steel (¶ 83).
Regarding claim 9, Tobata teaches an average cooling rate in the temperature range from Ms to cooling stop temperature is 5-120°C/s or less (¶ 73). This overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claims 10-11, Tobata teaches forming a hot-dip galvanizing layer during the post-anneal cooling process, with a subsequent alloying treatment (¶ 83). Nishio teaches the steel is galvanized during the cooling after annealing step by immersing in a hot dipping bath when the steel is at a temperature range of 450°C -600°C (¶ 155). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt the galvanizing temperature of Nishio in the process of Tobata because this is a conventional temperature for galvanizing a steel sheet.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights