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 .
Claim Status
Applicants’ July 08, 2026 response to the April 08, 2026 Non-Final Rejection is acknowledged. Claims 1-6 and 13-15 are pending; claim 1 is independent. Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Krevel et al. (US 2021/0025024 A1), hereinafter Van Krevel (of record).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Van Krevel teaches a cold-rolled steel grade with very high yield and tensile strength ([0011]), in the form of a steel sheet ([0014]) (see also “cold-rolled strip or sheet [0032]) of the composition shown below in Table 1 in weight percentage ([0014]-[0031]; [0046]; [0056]), where martensite is tempered in the microstructure measured in volume ([0038]) and may include 90% martensite/residual austenite (example 8 Table 4). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Van Krevel does not specifically teach an average spacing between precipitates in the tempered martensite is 300 nm or more, an average size of precipitates is ≤200nm, and the number of precipitates having an average size ≤ 40 nm is 25 or more in an area of 20 micron squared in the final microstructure (hereafter referred to as “precipitate limitations”).
Table 1
claim 1
claim 4
claims 5, 13-15
Van Krevel [0014]-[0031]; [0046]; [0056]
C
0.23-0.40
0.16-0.25
Si
0.05-1.0
0.05-1.10
Mn
0.5-3.0
1.50-4.00
V
0.01-0.12
0-0.20
Al
0.01-0.3
0.001-1.10
Cr
>0 to 0.5
≤ 0.05
Ti
>0 to 0.1
0-0.04
P
>0 to 0.02
0-0.05
S
>0 to 0.01
0-0.05
B
0.001-0.005
0.0005-0.005 ([0046])
Fe + unavoidable impurities
remainder
Remainder
Mo (or Nb cl. 4)
0.01-0.3
≤0.10
Nb (or Mo cl. 4)
0.01-0.1
0-0.025
C+V+Cr+Mo+Nb
< 0.63
Calculates to 0.16 to 0.625
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have expected substantially identical materials (as discussed above) treated in a substantially identical manner as applicants to have substantially identical properties (including precipitate limitations). Applicant teaches the processing below in Table 2 that produces their claimed product, which overlaps those of Van Krevel (Table 2 below) where processing ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05 I). Examiner notes that the remainder of processing parameters of applicant (Pgs. 5 and 6 of their specification) are introduced by “may”. Further, they are not noted to be critical in any of the examples and are therefore considered exemplary, not required parameters to achieve the outcome claimed. Additionally, though applicant points to the criticality of the “gradually increasing temperature” (Pg. 22 Lns. 13-19; Fig. 2), no rate is particularly noted.
Table 2
Applicants’ specification (Pg. 4 Ln. 20 to Pg. 5 [2])
Van Krevel [0081]—[0091]; Fig. 4
Provide a hot-rolled steel sheet
Hot roll a steel slab
Cold roll the steel sheet
Cold roll to a steel sheet
Heat and anneal the cold-rolled steel sheet, by gradually increasing the temperature between 750 and 950⁰C without a section in which a constant temperature is maintained, until cooling
Anneal as shown in Fig. 4, which shows a gradual increase and decrease of temperature during the soaking, soaking range is 760-900⁰C (average heating rate is 10-100⁰C/s); further the soaking may not be performed isothermally (constant temperature is never maintained as shown in Fig. 4 with the dotted line)
Cool the annealed cold-rolled steel sheet
The sheet is then cooled (to over-ageing temperature)
Reheat and temper the cooled cold-rolled steel sheet
May be temper rolled after cooling (temper rolling necessarily is at heated temperature)
Given substantially identical materials and processing parameters, (as discussed above), one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have expected the product of the prior art to have substantially identical properties to that of applicant; including the claimed properties, meeting applicant’s claimed requirements.
The examiner has provided a basis in technical reasoning that the processing and compositions are substantially identical in support of the determination that the inherent characteristic of the claimed properties necessarily flows from the teachings of the prior art (MPEP 2112 IV).
As the prior art teaches a substantially identical product, produced by a substantially identical process as that which applicant discloses in their specification as producing the claimed properties, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would expect the product of the prior art to possess the precipitate limitations, absent an objective showing (MPEP 2112). The PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product, whether the rejection is based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. 102 or prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same (MPEP 2112 V).
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 6 , Van Krevel teaches each limitation of claims 1-4 as discussed above and further teaches cold-rolled steel sheet with yield strength of at least 600 MPa and tensile strength of at least 1200 MPa ([0012]; yield ratio includes 1200MPa/600 MPa of 200%). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Van Krevel does not specifically teach claimed elongation of 7.0% or more, bendabili8ty of ≤2.5, nor a hydrogen embrittlement elongation reduction rate of 35% or less, nor a surface layer of the cold-rolled steel sheet comprises a soft region having a hardness < 85% of an average hardness of a base material, wherein a ratio of a thickness of the soft region to a thickness of the base material is 0.03-0.10, nor the cold-rolled steel sheet has a prior austenite grain size of ≤ 12 micron (hereinafter “limitations of claims 2, 3 and 6”).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have expected substantially identical materials (as discussed above) treated in a substantially identical manner as applicants to have substantially identical properties (including the limitations of claims 2, 3 and 6). Applicant teaches the processing above in Table 2 that produces their claimed product, which overlaps those of Van Krevel (Table 2 Above), where processing ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Examiner notes that the remainder of processing parameters of applicant (Pgs. 5 and 6 of their specification) are introduced by “may” and further not noted to be critical in any of the examples and are therefore considered exemplary, not required parameters to achieve the outcome claimed. Additionally, though applicant points to the criticality of the “gradually increasing temperature” (Pg. 22 Lns. 13-19; Fig. 2), no rate is particularly noted.
Given substantially identical materials and processing parameters, (as discussed above), one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have expected the product of the prior art to have substantially identical properties to that of applicant; including the claimed properties, meeting applicant’s claimed requirements.
The examiner has provided a basis in technical reasoning that the processing and compositions are substantially identical in support of the determination that the inherent characteristic of the claimed properties necessarily flows from the teachings of the prior art (MPEP 2112 IV).
As the prior art teaches a substantially identical product, produced by a substantially identical process as that which applicant discloses in their specification as producing the claimed properties, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would expect the product of the prior art to possess the limitations of claims 2, 3 and 6, absent an objective showing (MPEP 2112). The PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product, whether the rejection is based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. 102 or prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same (MPEP 2112 V).
Regarding claims 5 and 13-15, Van Krevel teaches each limitation of claims 1-4 as discussed above and further teaches the composition shown above in Table 1 in weight percentage ([0014]-[0031]; [0046]; [0056]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions including where C+V+Cr+Mo+Nb are added together and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements including the claimed calculation (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Response to Arguments
Applicants amendments and arguments, filed July 08, 2026, with respect to objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of April 08, 2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicants amendments and arguments, filed July 08, 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of April 08, 2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed July 08, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding the obviousness rejections of record. Specifically, applicant argues that the process of Krevel is not substantially identical to the process of applicant. Applicant alleges that the optional steps (introduced with “may” and also referred to with phrases like “it is possible”,) are critical; however, no evidence of criticality has been presented and the examiner reiterates that these steps are not defined in any examples or tables and therefore continue to be treated by her as optional. Applicant cites other alleged processing differences but absolutely no evidence is provided that any of these would cause a difference in property results. Examiner therefore maintains the process of Krevel reads on that of applicant; as rejected above and arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. Applicant is invited to provide or cite data in their next reply to advance prosecution.
For these reasons, and for those reasons as advanced in the rejections above, the present claims are not found to distinguish over the prior art and this action is made FINAL.
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 KATHERINE CHRISTY whose telephone number is (303)297-4363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-4pm MT.
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.
/KATHERINE A CHRISTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights