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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01 August 2024 and 12 March 2026 were considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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 1-7 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.
Claim 1 claims an average grain size of grains “firstly counted” in a sheet thickness direction form the surface. It is unclear which grains would be included in this average grain size calculation. While it is clear that the first grains directly adjacent to the surface of the sheet would be included, it is unclear if the “firstly counted” grains would include any grains further from the surface. It is unclear how far from the surface the “firstly counted” grains would extend. It is also unclear if the “firstly counted” grains are the grains within a certain distance from the surface of the steel sheet or if there is some other parameter that would designate a grain as a “firstly counted” grain. The specification does not provide clarity and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim. Claims 2-7 are rejected as they depend on claim 1.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP6635236B1 (machine translation) of Kojiro in view of WO2018199328A1 (machine translation) of Yabu.
Regarding Claim 1, Kojiro teaches a high-strength cold-rolled steel sheet and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kojiro discloses a high-strength cold-rolled steel sheet (cold-rolled steel sheet) that comprises, in mass%, C: more than 0.140% and less than 0.400% (more than 0.140% and less than 0.400%), Si: more than 0.35% and less than 1.50% (less than 1.00%), Mn: more than 1.50% and less than 4.00% (more than 2.00% and less than 3.50%), P: 0.100% or less (0.100% or less), S: 0.010% or less (0.010% or less), Al: 0.100% or less (0.100% or less), N: 0.0100% or less (0.0100% or less), Ti: 0% or more and less than 0.050% (0% or more and less than 0.050%), Nb: 0% or more and less than 0.050% (0% or more and less than 0.050%), V : 0% or more and 0.50% or less (0% or more and 0.50% or less), Cr: 0% or more and 1.00% or less (0% or more and 1.00% or less), Mo: 0% or more and 0.50% or less (0% or more and 0.50% or less), B: 0% or more and 0.0100% or less (0% or more and 0.0100% or less), Ca: 0% or more and 0.0100% or less (0% or more and 0.0100% or less), Mg: 0% or more and 0.0100% or less (0% or more and 0.0100% or less), REM: 0% or more and 0.0500% or less (0% or more and 0.0500% or less), Bi: 0% or more and 0.050% or less (0% or more and 0.050% or less), with the balance being Fe and impurities, Para[0010]. Kojiro discloses the same range for C and an overlapping range for Mn as the claimed invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. These are the only 2 non-optional elements of claim 1. Therefore, Kojiro’s teaching of C and Mn covers the elemental composition of claim 1. It is noted that Kojiro also discloses the same ranges for P, S, Al, N, Ti, Nb, V, Cr, Mo, B, Ca, Mg, REM, and Bi as the claimed invention. While Kojiro does not disclose ranges for Cu or Ni, such as those listed in claim 1, Cu and Ni are not a requirement to satisfy claim 1 as they are optional. Kojiro also teaches a structure at a position from the surface to one-quarter of the sheet thickness (a metallographic structure at a ¼ depth position, which is a ¼ thickness position from the surface, contains, by volume percentage), which contains, by volume, 70.0% or more tempered martensite (tempered martensite: 80.0% or more), more than 3.0% and less than 10.0% retained austenite (retained austenite: more than 1.0% and less than 10.0%), a total of 25.0% or less ferrite and bainite (ferrite and bainite: 0% or more and 15.0% or less in total), and 5.0% or less martensite (martensite: 0% or more and 3.0% or less), Para[0010]. The disclosed ranges overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. While Kojiro does not specifically mention the numerical limitation related to average grain size of the first grains on the surface, Kojiro discloses an alloy that meets all compositional limitations of claim 1 and contains microstructural phases that meet the limitations of claim 1. Kojiro’s alloy is produced by hot rolling a cast slab, coiling, pickling (descaling), cold rolling, annealing, cooling, hot-dip galvanizing, tempering and skin pass rolling, Para [0010]. This process is substantially identical to the process described in the instant specification. 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, see MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, the average grain size of claim 1 is an inherent characteristic of the alloy taught by Kojiro.
Additionally, Yabu discloses a high strength steel sheet and method for manufacturing same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Yabu discloses that it is thought that the bendability is further improved because the recrystallized grain size (ferrite grain size) in the surface layer is refined, Para[0025]. Yabu teaches that the average crystal grain size of the recrystallized structure of each surface softened portion (average grain size of grains firstly counted in a sheet thickness direction form the surface when viewed at a cross section parallel to a rolling direction and parallel to the sheet thickness direction, average grain size of the grains when the surface is viewed in a plan view) is 0.1 μm or more and 40 μm or less (20.0 µm or less, 30.0 µm or less), Para[0026]. Yabu’s range overlaps with the claimed range for a cross section parallel to a rolling direction and the claimed range for a cross section in plan view. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to refine the grain size, as taught by Yabu, in the surface layer of the steel of Kojiro in order to improve the bendability of the steel. Thus, Kojiro in view of Yabu teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Kojiro teaches a tensile strength of 1310 MPa or more (tensile strength is 1310 MPa or more), a uniform elongation of 5.0% or more (uniform elongation is 4.0% or more), and a ratio R/t of the limiting bending radius R to the sheet thickness t in a 90° V-bend of 5.0 or less (R/t, which is a ratio of a limit bend R to a sheet thickness at 90° V-bending is 5.0 or less), Para[0010]. This is the same range for tensile strength and ratio R/t as the claimed invention. Kojiro’s uniform elongation overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Kojiro teaches the additional limitations of claim 2. Thus, Kojiro in view of Yabu covers all limitations of claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, Kojiro teaches that in the method for producing a high-strength cold-rolled steel sheet (cold-rolled steel sheet according to claim 1), the chemical composition may contain, in mass%, one or more of (the chemical composition contains, by mass%, one or more of) Ti: 0.001% or more and less than 0.050% (0.001% or more and less than 0.050%), Nb: 0.001% or more and less than 0.050% (0.001% or more and less than 0.050%), V: 0.01% or more and 0.50% or less (0.01% or more and 0.50% or less), Cr: 0.01% or more and 1.00% or less (0.01% or more and 1.00% or less), Mo: 0.01% or more and 0.50% or less (0.01% or more and 0.50% or less), B:0.0001% or more and 0.0100% or less (0.0001% or more and 0.0100% or less), Ca: 0.0001% or more and 0.0100% or less (0.0001% or more and 0.0100% or less), Mg: 0.0001% or more and 0.0100% or less (0.0001% or more and 0.0100% or less), REM: 0.005% or more and 0.0500% or less (0.0005% or more and 0.0500% or less), and Bi: 0.005% or more and 0.050% or less (0.0005% or more and 0.050% or less). Kojiro’s ranges for Ti, Nb, V, Cr, Mo, B, Ca and Mg are the same as the claimed ranges. Kojiro’s ranges for REM and Bi overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. While Kojiro does not disclose ranges for Cu or Ni, such as those listed in claim 3, Cu and Ni are not a requirement to satisfy claim 3 as only one or more of the elements claimed must be present. Since Kojiro discloses ranges for all the other elements listed in claim 3, Kojiro meets the additional limitation of claim 3. Thus, Kojiro in view of Yabu covers all limitations of claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, Kojiro teaches that in the high-strength cold-rolled steel sheet according to (1) or (2) (the cold-rolled steel sheet according to claim 1), the surface may be provided with a hot dip galvanized layer (a hot-dip galvanized layer is formed on the surface), Para[0010]. Therefore, Kojiro teaches the additional limitation of claim 4. Thus, Kojiro in view of Yabu covers all limitations of claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5, Kojiro teaches that in the high-strength cold-rolled steel sheet according to (1) or (2) (the cold-rolled steel sheet according to claim 3), the surface may be provided with a hot dip galvanized layer (a hot-dip galvanized layer is formed on the surface), Para[0010]. Therefore, Kojiro teaches the additional limitation of claim 5. Thus, Kojiro in view of Yabu covers all limitations of claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6, Kojiro teaches that in the high-strength cold-rolled steel sheet according to (3) (the cold rolled steel sheet according to claim 4), the hot-dip galvanized layer may be a galvannealed layer (the hot-dip galvanized layer is a hot-dip galvannealed layer), Para[0010]. Therefore, Kojiro teaches the additional limitation of claim 6. Thus, Kojiro in view of Yabu covers all limitations of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, Kojiro teaches that in the high-strength cold-rolled steel sheet according to (3) (the cold rolled steel sheet according to claim 5), the hot-dip galvanized layer may be a galvannealed layer (the hot-dip galvanized layer is a hot-dip galvannealed layer), Para[0010]. Therefore, Kojiro teaches the additional limitation of claim 7. Thus, Kojiro in view of Yabu covers all limitations of claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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 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.
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights