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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-10, 16-17 and 19 in the reply filed on 03/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Tan does not teach the recited limitation in claim 1 and that there is not serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because this case is filed under PCT Rule 13.1 and the restriction requirement is based on whether Group I and Group II share a specifical technical feature. As shown below, claim 1 is obvious over Zhao in view of Xing. Thus, Group I and Group II lack special technical feature and the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 11-15, 18 and 20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-10, 16-17 and 19 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 16-17 and 19 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.
The terms “high strength” and “high cold bending performance” in claims 1-10, 16-17 and 19 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “high strength” and “high cold bending performance” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Please define “a strength-elongation product” recited in claim 10 and indicate whether strength is yield strength or tensile strength. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 depends from claim 6, which does not further limit claim 6. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN111235483, IDS dated 03/25/2026), and further in view of Xing (CN108396224, IDS dated 03/25/2026).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4 and 7-8, 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.
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.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN111235483) in view of Xing (CN108396224), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu (CN 113528940, IDS dated 03/25/2026).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Zhao discloses that the steel contains 0.23-0.29 wt.% C, 1-2.5 wt.% Mn, 0.2-1 wt.%. % Si, 0.02-0.06 wt.% Al, 0.01-0.03 wt. % Ti, 0.001-0.003 wt. % B, 0.03-0.08 wt. % Nb and 0.2-1.0 wt.% Cr (Abstract), which overlap the recited amount of C, Mn, Si, Al, Ti, B and Cr in claim 3 and the recited amount of Nb in claim 16. Zhao in view of Xing does not disclose the amount of Mo and Ni 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 3 and 16 are obvious over Zhao in view of Xing, and further in view of Xu.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN111235483) in view of Xing (CN108396224), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 104384283).
Regarding claim 5, Zhao in view of Xing 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 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 further in view of Zhang.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights