DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Note
This office action is in response to applicants’ amendments to the claims and remarks filed August 7, 2026. Claims 1-5, 8-9, and 11-21 are pending. Claims 9 and 11-15 remain withdrawn as directed to non-elected subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, and 16-21 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 limits the volume fraction of residual austenite to “≥1.0% or ≥1.5%”. Limiting the volume of retained austenite to alternate ranges where one falls within the order appears to suggest the more narrow limitations is optional. It is unclear if the more narrow range is optional or further limits the claimed volume % of residual austenite. For purposes of examination the volume of residual austenite will be considered limited to greater than or equal to 1.0 vol. % (i.e. “or ≥ 1.5% does not further limit the volume of retained austenite).
Claims 2-5, 8, and 16-21 are rejected for depending form claim 1 as rejected above.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futamura et al. (PGPub US 9,631,266).
Regarding applicants’ claims 1, 2, and 21, Futamura et al. disclose a cold rolled steel sheet comprising elements including (weight percent): 0.10 to 0.3% carbon, 1.0 to 3% silicon, 1.5 to 3% manganese, and 0.01 to 0.15% niobium (col. 6 lines 25-67 and col. 8 lines 12-26). The microstructure comprising a sum of bainite and tempered martensite to be 70% or more, with retained austenite at 3 to 20% (col. 11 lines 39-67). Retained austenite is the austenite remaining and is therefore considered to be residual austenite, where the amount disclosed by Futamura et al. exceeds the claimed minimum of 1.0% by volume.
While Futamura et al. do not appear to disclose the exact proportions claimed, the range of compositional and microstructural proportions disclosed overlap those claimed by applicants. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to select from the disclosed proportions including proportions which fall within applicants’ claimed ranges.
Applicants’ limitations directed to “an original austinite grain formed by annealing” and “lath-like microstructure obtained at the same time” are product by process limitations directed to intermediate structure formed during the manufacture of the cold-rolled steel sheet. While Futamura et al. do not appear to characterize the steel sheet in the same manner as applicants, substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to have substantially identical properties. As long as the cold-rolled steel sheet disclosed by Futamura et al. is formed in a manner substantially identical to applicants’ disclosed steel sheet it would be expected to exhibit properties and structure substantially identical to applicants’ steel sheet and thereby satisfy applicants’ claimed requirements.
Applicants disclose a manufacturing process where a slab is subjected to hot rolling followed by cold rolling and annealing at 890-920°C for 80-150s and cooled at 30-100°C/s, where Futamuta et al. disclose a cold-rolled steel sheet having compositional and microstructural proportions which may fall within those disclosed by applicants’ as discussed above. Further Futamuta et al. disclose manufacturing the steel sheet by hot rolling a slab, cold rolling, and annealing at Ac3 to Ac3 +30°C for 100-500s and cooled at 20-100°C (col. 15 lines 1-58).
Given steel sheets having substantially identical compositions produced by substantially identical processes the resulting cold-rolled steel sheets would be expected to exhibit the same structure and properties and therefore the cold-rolled steel sheet of Futamuta et al. would be expected to satisfy the structural requirements imposed by the claimed intermediate processing parameters.
Regarding applicants’ claims 3, 4, and 19, Futamura et al. disclose titanium at 0.01 to 0.15%, phosphorus at 0.1% or less, sulfur at 0.05% or less and nitrogen at 0.01% or less (col. 7 lines 36-42 and col. 8 lines 12-26). While Futamura et al. do not appear to disclose the exact proportions claimed, the range of compositional proportions overlaps those ranges claimed by applicants. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to select from the disclosed proportions including proportions which fall within applicants’ claimed ranges.
Regarding applicants’ claims 5, 16, and 20, Futamura et al. disclose a tensile strength of 980 MPa or more (col. 1 lines 10-12) and include examples exhibiting an elongation of 15% or more (Table 5), however Futamura et al. do not appear to characterize the steel sheet by all of the properties as claimed by applicants. As discussed above, substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to having substantially identical properties, therefore the cold-rolled steel sheets of Futamura et al. are expected to exhibit measured properties that at least overlap applicants’ claimed ranges.
Regarding applicants’ claim 8, Futamura et al. disclose the addition a galvanizing layer on the steel sheet (col. 19 lines 50-53).
Regarding applicants’ claims 17 and 18, the microstructure comprising a sum of bainite and tempered martensite to be 70% or more, with retained austenite at 3 to 20% (col. 11 lines 39-67). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to form steel sheets having microstructural proportions within the disclosed ranges including having values which fall within applicants’ claimed ranges.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicants’ amendments the claims and remarks field August 7, 2026 have been considered and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been overcome (with respect to “obtained at the same time”). Following further consideration, new grounds of rejection have been found with respect to the clarity of the retained austenite limit of ≥1.0% or ≥1.5%. Further it is determined that the claims limit the volume of retained austenite to greater than or equal to 1.0 vol. %. Futamura et al. disclose a microstructure comprising a sum of bainite and tempered martensite of 70% or more, with retained austenite at 3 to 20% (col. 11 lines 39-67). Because Futamura et al. disclose a retained austenite of 3 to 20 vol. % the remaining austenite exceeds 1.0 vol. % and therefore the microstructure of Futamura et al. satisfies the claimed microstructural volume requirements. Given that the new grounds of rejection were not necessitated by applicants amendments to the claims, this office action is made NON-FINAL.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM C KRUPICKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm 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.
/Adam Krupicka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
