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
Claims 7-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on March 16, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on March 16, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue search burden. This is not found persuasive because the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-6 and 13-15 are pending, claim 1 is independent.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Specifically, “Provided is” is language that can be implied.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: "weight,: and a remainder being Fe and other unavoidable impurities" should read "weight, and a remainder being Fe and unavoidable impurities". Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “ultra-high strength” in claim 1 is a relative term, which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, nor does the specification 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.
Regarding claims 2 -6 and 13-15, these claims are rejected for their incorporation of the above due to their respective dependencies on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Van Krevel teaches a cold-rolled steel grade with very high yield and tensile strength ([0011]; “ultra-high”), 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sung et al (US-20230357878-A1) teaches a steel sheet ([0019]) with a composition by weight percentage of C: 0.15-0.40%, Si: > 0 to 0.4%, Mn: 0.3-0.7%, S: > 0 to 0.01%, P: >0 to 0.03%, Cr: 0.6-2.0%, Mo: 0.15-0.8%, Nb: ≤ 0.12%, Al: >0 to 0.06%, B: >0 to 0.007% ([0031]) and a tempered martensite matrix structure ([0087]).
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