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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/02/2024 and 10/09/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Groups I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/25/2025.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goto et al. (Modeling of surface crack defects developed on shear edge in high-strength automotive steel sheets), herein Goto.
PNG
media_image1.png
489
1011
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claims 1-4 and 7, Goto teaches a steel sheet for automobile components/parts [Abstract, Introduction]. The sheets have a sheared surface comprising a rollover, a fracture surface and a burr [Introduction, Fig. 11, Sec. 3.4]. The fracture surface has a first part and a second part, the set part is highlighted in the simulation figures, Fig. 12 a-d. The second part, from the crack that start on the burr side, has a length on less than 0.25 mm based on the scale bar, while the entire fracture portion has a length of 1.31 mm [Fig. 11, Fig. 12 a-d]. The area ratio is expected to scale by the length of each section, with the first being 1.31 -0.25 = 1.06 mm and the second part being less than 0.25 mm as the burr is not included, thus the ratio greater than 2 as 1.06/0.25= 4.2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsushi et al. (JP 2006231425A), herein Atsushi.
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of (JP 2006231425A). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
In regards to claims 1 and 4, Atsushi teaches a steel sheet with a sheared edge [0001, 0009, 0010]. The sheared edge has a rollover/avalanche (T1), a fracture surface (T3) and a burr (T4) [0013, Fig. 10 (f) reproduced below].
Atsushi does not expressly teach the length of the first part and the second part of the fracture surface and thus does not teach the area ratio.
PNG
media_image2.png
244
341
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Atsushi teaches it is desirable to ensure the ductility of the fractured surface in order to suppress cracks on the cut surface as well as the stress concentration between the sections T3 and T4 by reducing the height/length of the second part [0013, 0027].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the area ratio of the first part of the fracture surface 1.5 times or more of the area ratio of the second part of the fracture surface for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
A particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B.).
It has been held that the discovery of the optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regards to claims 2-3, Atsushi does not expressly teach the length of the first part and the second part of the fracture surface and thus does not teach the area ratio.
Atsushi teaches it is desirable to ensure the ductility of the fractured surface in order to suppress cracks on the cut surface as well as the stress concentration between the sections by reducing the height/length of the second part [0013, 0027].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the area ratio of the first part of the fracture surface 2times or more of the area ratio of the second part of the fracture surface for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
A particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B.).
It has been held that the discovery of the optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regards to claim 7, Atsushi further teaches the steel sheet is for creating automobile parts [0009].
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsushi et al. (JP 2006231425A), herein Atsushi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasutomi et al. (US 2018/0333760) [IDS dated: 08/02/2024], herein Yasutomi.
In regards to claims 5-6, Atsushi teaches the steel is high strength steel but does not expressly teach the tensile strength is 980 MPa or 1470 MPa or greater.
Yasutomi teaches steel sheets for automotive use that have a sheared surface [Abstract, 0157] . Yasutomi teaches the steel has a tensile strength of 980 MPa or more [0064]. This overlaps the claimed ranges.
It would have been obvious used steel of tensile strength of 980 MPa or more as taught by Yasutomi as the steel of Atsushi. One would have been motivated to do so as it would have been the simple substitution of one known high strength steel for automobile part use for another and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A COLLISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1019. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9 am-5 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.
/ELIZABETH COLLISTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784