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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 16-17 and 19 are amended. Claim 3 is cancelled. Claims 11-15, 18 and 20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 16-17 and 19 are examined herein.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN111235483, IDS dated 03/25/2026) in view of Xing (CN108396224, IDS dated 03/25/2026), and further in view of Xu (CN 113528940, IDS dated 03/25/2026).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 7-8 and 16, Zhao teaches a method for producing a high-strength hot-stamped component, comprising: manufacturing a steel sheet; heating the steel sheet at 870-970°C for 3-6 min ([0035]), which meets the recited heat treatment temperature and time in claim 1. Zhao discloses an example that the heat treatment temperature is 930 ºC and the heat treatment time is 5 minutes ([0082]), which meets the limitation that a period of time during which the heat treatment temperature is 880°C or higher is no less than 1.2 min and the heated component has a temperature of >900°C when it exits the heat treatment furnace as recited in claim 1.
Zhao discloses that the transfer time from heat treatment furnace to hot stamping mold is 8-15 second ([0035]), which overlaps the transfer time for both when the steel thickness is ≤1.5 mm and when the steel thickness is >1.5 mm as recited in claim 1. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, the recited transfer time is a prima facie case of obviousness over Zhao. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Zhao does not teach the recited homogenization step. Xing teaches a method of making a hot stamping component from s teel sheet that is analogous to the method of Zhao (See claims 1-10). Xing discloses a tempering heat treatment at 140-200 ºC for 10-30 minutes is performed after hot stamping and the produced components have high strength and high elongation ([0010] to [0024]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a tempering heat treatment at 140-200 ºC for 10-30 minutes as taught by Xing in the view of Zhao in order to make a component having high strength and high elongation as disclosed by Xing.
Zhao in view of Xing does not explicitly disclose a pre-processing step to make a steel sheet into a specific shape and a mechanical processing step on the hot stamped component as recited in claims 1 and 8. However, cutting the steel sheet from a coil into a certain shape before the heat treatment process and performing mechanical processing after the hot stamped part is formed are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cut the steel sheet into a certain shape to fit the design of the final product before the heat treatment and perform cutting and/or polishing after the hot stamped part is formed in the process of Zhao in view of Xing in order to make a hot stamped part that meet the required shape and function.
Zhao in view of Xing does not disclose the amount of Mo and Ni as recited in claim 16 and the amount of Nb+Mo+Ni as recited in claim 3.
Xu teaches a steel having major composition overlapping the steel composition disclosed by Zhao (Abstract). Xu discloses that the steel contains 0.01-0.7 wt.% Mo and Ni+Cu ≤0.5 wt.% (it covers an embodiment that [Cu]=0 and [Ni] ≤0.5 wt.%) and the steel composition has low hydrogen cracking risk and high toughness (Abstract; [0046]; [0047]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add 0.01-0.7 wt.% Mo and control Ni amount to ≤0.5 wt.% as taught by Xu in the steel of Zhao in view of Xing in order to make a steel having low hydrogen cracking risk and high toughness as disclosed by Xu. The amount of Nb+Mo+Ni disclosed by Zhao in view of Xu is 0.04-1.28 wt.%. Thus, the amount of Nb, Ni Mo, and Nb+Mo+Ni disclosed by Zhao in view of Xu overlap the recited composition in claims 3 and 16. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, claims 1 and 16 are obvious over Zhao in view of Xing, and further in view of Xu.
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Zhao discloses that a mold temperature is always lower than 200°C during the stamping ([0035]), which meets the limitation recited in claims 6 and 19.
Regarding claim 9, Zhao discloses that the structure is full martensite ([0035]), which meets the limitations recited in claim 9.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Zhao discloses that the tensile strength is 1640 MPa, the elongation is 8.6% (Table 2) and the cold bending angle is greater than 65º ([0094]), which meets the limitation recited in claims 10 and 17.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN111235483) in view of Xing (CN108396224) and Xu (CN 113528940, IDS dated 03/25/2026), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 104384283).
Regarding claim 5, Zhao in view of Xing and Xu does not disclose the recited limitation in claim 5. Zhang teaches a hot stamping method and discloses that the stamping speed is 20-40 mm/s and the holding time is 2-10 s and the part produced has good size precision and properties (Abstract). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform hot stamping at a stamping speed of 20-40 mm/s and at a holding time of 2-10 s as taught by Zhao in the process of Zhao in view of Xing and Xu in order to make a part having good size precision and properties as disclosed by Zhao. The stamping speed disclosed by Zhao overlaps the recited stamping speed in claim 5. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, claim 5 is obvious over Zhao in view of Xing and Xu, and further in view of Zhang.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants argued that Zhao, Xing, and/or Xu, each discloses a steel product that contains V, one skilled artisan would not have been motivated to come up with a method for making a steel sheet with a chemical composition of a substrate of the steel sheet for hot stamping that does not contain V. Thus, claim 1, as now amended, along with its dependent claim 16, would not have been obvious, but patentable over, Zhao in view of Xing, and further in view of Xu.
In response, claim 1 recites a steel composition. However, claim 1 does not exclude additional elements other than the recited ones. More specifically, claim 1 does not use a closed transitional phrase such as “consisting of” to exclude other elements. Since the combination of Zhao, Xing and Xu teaches a method and composition that meets the limitation recited in claim 1, claim 1 is obvious over Zhao in view of Xing and Xu.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
