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 statement (IDS) submitted on 01 August 2024 was considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021176999A1 (machine translation) of Nakada in view of WO2020196060A1 (machine translation) of Nakano, further in view of WO2011093319A1 (machine translation) of Sano.
Regarding Claim 1, Nakada teaches a hot rolled steel sheet in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Nakada discloses a hot-rolled steel sheet (steel sheet), Para[0002]. Nakada teaches that the chemical composition, in mass %, is: C: 0.30-0.80% (0.150% or more and less than 0.400%), Si: 0.01-0.50% (0.01% to 2.00%), Mn: 0.50-2.00% (0.80% to 2.00%), P: 0.100% or less (0.0001% to 0.0200%), S: 0.0100% or less (0.0001% to 0.0200%), Al: 0.100% or less (0.001% to 1.000%), N: 0.0100% or less (0.0001% to 0.0200%), Cr: 0.30-1.00% (0.500% to 4.000%), Ti: 0- 1.00% (0% to 0.500%), Nb: 0-0.10% (0% to 0.500%), V: 0-1.00% (0% to 0.500%), Cu: 0-1.00% (0% to 0.500%), Ni: 0-2.00% (0% to 1.000%), Mo: 0-0.40% (0% to 1.0000%), B: 0-0.0100% (0% to 0.010%), Ca: 0- 0.0050% (0% to 0.050%), REM: 0-0.005%, and the balance: Fe and impurities, Para[0010]. Nakada’s ranges overlap with the claimed ranges for the elements listed above. 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. The only non-optional element of claim 1 not taught by Nakada is oxygen.
Nakada discloses that a sample is taken from a position 1/4 or 3/4 of the way down the plate thickness from the surface of the steel plate, so that the cross section parallel to the rolling direction and thickness direction of the steel plate serves as the observation surface (a microstructure at a t/4 portion ranging from 1/8 to 3/8 of a sheet thickness in a sheet thickness direction from a surface), Para[0040]. Nakada also discloses that the steel sheet characterized in that the microstructure comprises, in terms of area ratio, pearlite: 90 to 100%, and pro-eutectoid ferrite: 0 to 10% (by area ratio, ferrite: less than 10.0%, and pearlite: more than 90.0%), Para[0010]. Nakada teaches that retained austenite, pro-eutectoid cementite, bainite, and martensite are absent or substantially absent in the microstructure. "Substantially absent" means that the total area fraction of these structures is less than 0.5% (a remainder of the microstructure is one or two or more of bainite, martensite, and residual austenite), Para[0037].
Nakada also discloses pearlite grain boundaries (in the microstructure, a boundary between a block and an adjacent block included in the pearlite is referred to as a block boundary and a boundary between a colony and an adjacent colony included in the pearlite is referred to as a colony boundary), Para[0040]. Nakada teaches that pearlite includes not only a structure in which ferrite and cementite are dispersed in layers (lamellae), but also a structure mainly composed of massively dispersed cementite, Para[0040], and that minute voids tend to be generated at the punched or sheared end surface, originating from carbides or the interface between the carbide and the matrix (granular cementites are present on one or both of the block boundaries and the colony boundaries), Para[0010].
Nakada also discloses that cementite whose major axis length exceeds 0.3 μm (the granular cementites present on the block boundaries and the granular cementites present on the colony boundaries have a maximum diameter of 0.50 µm or less) and whose aspect ratio is less than 3.0 is defined herein as coarse spheroidal cementite. The inventors' investigations have revealed that such coarse spheroidal cementite serves as the starting point for void generation during punching of steel sheets, and that by setting the ratio of coarse spheroidal cementite to the total cementite below a certain level, the effect of suppressing void generation during punching of steel sheets can be achieved. To achieve this effect, the ratio of coarse spheroidal cementite to the total cementite in pearlite should be less than 15%, preferably 14% or less, and more preferably 12% or less or 10% or less, Para[0039]. Nakada’s teaching of less than 0.3 µm major axis length overlaps with the claimed maximum diameter of 0.5 µm or less. 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.
Nakada discloses that the spacing between the cementite particles is greater than 0 but not greater than 0.5 μm, Para[0007]. This means there could be a maximum of 2 cementite particles per 0.5 µm of space. This is equivalent to 4 cementite particles per µm (the number of grains of the granular cementites present on the block boundaries and grains of the granular cementites present on the colony boundaries per unit length on the block boundaries or the colony boundaries is 0.3 pieces/µm or more and 5.0 pieces/µm or less).
Nakada discloses a tensile strength of 980-1500 Mpa (tensile strength is 1,200 MPa or more), Para[0043]. Nakada’s cementite particles spacing and tensile strength 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.
Nakada does not teach oxygen or a general aspect ratio for the spheroidal cementite.
Nakano discloses a high strength steel sheet in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Nakano teaches O: 0.0060% or less (0.0001% to 0.0200%), Para[0011]. This 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. Nakano discloses that an object of the present invention is to provide a high strength steel sheet having improved workability, bending load and bendability, Para[0010]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include oxygen in the range taught by Nakano to the steel sheet of Nakada in order to achieve high strength, improved workability, bending load and bendability.
While Nakada and Nakano do not teach an aspect ratio of the spheroidal cementite, they disclose a steel sheet that meets the compositional limitations of claim 1 and is produced by a process involving heating a cast slab, hot rolling, cooling, coiling, pickling/cold rolling, and annealing. This 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. Thus, the aspect ratio of the claimed invention would inherently be present in the steel of Nakada in view of Nakano.
Additionally, Sano teaches a high strength cold rolled steel sheet, and process for production thereof in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Sano teaches that the average grain size of cementite is 0.01 μm or more and 1 μm or less , and contains 30% or more and 100% or less of cementite having an aspect ratio of 1 or more and 3 or less in the cementite (granular cementites present on the block boundaries and the granular cementites present on the colony boundaries have a maximum diameter of 0.50 µm or less, the granular cementites are cementites having an aspect ratio of less than 10), Para[0013]. Sano’s ranges for grain size and aspect ratio 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. Sano teaches that it is an object to provide a steel sheet excellent in a balance between strength and moldability capable of suppressing cracking at the time of hole expansion, Para[0012]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the grain size and aspect ratio of Sano in the steel sheet of Nakada and Nakano in order to achieve excellent strength and moldability capable of suppressing cracking at the time of hole expansion.
Thus, Nakada in view of Nakano and Sano covers all limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Nakada discloses Ni: 0-2.00% (0.001% to 1.000%), Mo: 0-0.40% (0.0005% to 1.0000%), Ti: 0.01-1.00% (0.001% to 0.500%), B: 0-0.0100% (0.001% to 0.010%), Nb: 0.01-0.10% (0.001% to 0.500%), V: 0.01-1.00% (0.001% to 0.500%), Cu: 0.01-1.00% (0.001% to 0.500%), Ca: 0.0005-0.0050% (0.001% to 0.050%), Para[0013]. These 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. Therefore, Nakada covers the additional limitation of claim 2. Thus, Nakada in view of Nakano and Sano covers all limitations of claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, Nakada is silent on a coating layer.
Nakano teaches a hot dip galvanized layer that may be a zinc alloy, Para[0103]. Nakano discloses that an object of the present invention is to provide a high strength steel sheet having improved workability, bending load and bendability, Para[0010]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the hot dip galvanized layer of Nakano in the steel of Nakad in order to achieve high strength with improved workability, bending load and bendability.
Thus, Nakada in view of Nakano and Sano covers all limitations of claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, Nakada is silent on a coating layer.
Nakano teaches a hot dip galvanized layer that may be a zinc alloy, Para[0103]. Nakano discloses that an object of the present invention is to provide a highs strength steel sheet having improved workability, bending load and bendability, Para[0010]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the hot dip galvanized layer of Nakano in the steel of Nakad in order to achieve high strength with improved workability, bending load and bendability.
Thus, Nakada in view of Nakano and Sano covers all limitations of claim 4.
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