DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on January 26, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Ono et al. should not be considered prior art against claim 1. Applicants’ arguments that the claims distinguish over Ono et al. are found to be persuasive, however claim 1 is not found to distinguish over Futamura et al. as discussed below. As such the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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, 7-8, 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.
Claims 1 and 21 set forth requirements based on “an original austenite grain formed by annealing” and a lath-like microstructure “obtained at the same time”. It is unclear what structural requirements are imposed by these limitations. Are these limitations directed to the final claimed product or do they characterize an intermediate product formed during the formation of the claimed steel sheet? If they are requirements of the final claimed product what is intended by the terms “original” and “at the same time”? If the requirements are directed to an intermediate product what structural requirements do they impose on the claimed steel sheet. For the purpose of examination these limitations will be considered as product-by-process limitations which characterize the structure of an intermediate product.
Claim 1 references a “lath-like” structure, however it is unclear what structures are encompassed by the term “lath-like”. Does “lath-like” allow for any fine needle shaped microstructure or does it allow for other martensitic structures that do not have a final needle shape? The term “lath-like” does not establish a clear boundary such that one of ordinary skill in the art can conclude what aspect or aspects of the microstructure need to be similar in order to be “lath-like”.
Claims 2-5, 7-8, and 16-21 are rejected for depending from, either directly or indirectly, 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). 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Futamura et al. disclose a cold rolled steel sheet as discussed above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose a residual austenite fraction of 1.0 to 1.5%, further there is no motivation such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the microstructural proportions of the steel sheets of Futamura et al. to include residual austenite at 1.0 to 1.5% as claimed.
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
Prosecution Insights