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 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 4-5 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “performing skin pass rolling on the alloyed heat-treated steel sheet” and the phrase “the alloyed heat-treated steel sheet” lacks antecedent basis as only annealing is recited (i.e. heat treating) and no alloying of the sheet is recited. Claim 5 is included in this rejection as it depends upon a rejected claim. This may be overcome by amending to positively recite an alloying treatment or making claim 4 dependent upon claim 6.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitano et al. (JP2006-342412 – machine translation) in view of Blumenau et al. (WO2016/055227 – machine translation).
Considering claim 1, Kitano teaches a method of forming a steel sheet (abstract) comprising continuous casting an alloy comprising by mass C: 0.0040-0.02%, Si: ≤1.5%, Mn: 0.5-3.0%, P: 0.01-0.1%, S: ≤ 0.02%, N: ≤0.005%, sol. Al ≤1.0%, Mo: 0.3% or less, Ti: 0.005-1.0%, Nb: 0.02-0.2%, B: 0.003% or less and trace elements with the balance Fe and unavoidable impurities (Paragraphs 10 and 35-36). The steel is cast in a slab, reheating then hot rolling the slab, coiling the hot rolled steel sheet, cold rolling, annealing, and then subsequently hot dip galvanized in a zinc bath (Paragraphs 10, 19, 37, and 40). The casting rate Vc in m/min is 1 ≤ 4.5 – 0.5(12/93)(Nb/C) (Paragraph 11). However, Kitano does not teach the claimed Cu content.
In a related field of endeavor, Blumenau teaches a cold-rolled steel flat product (Paragraph 1) used in automotive body construction, etc. (Paragraphs 4-5). The steel consists by mass of C:0.0001-0.003%, Si: 0.001-0.025%, Mn: 0.05-0.20%, P: 0.001-0.015%, Al: 0.02-0.055%, Ti: 0.01-0.1%, the rest Fe and impurities (Paragraphs 60-68), optionally N: 0.001-0.004%, Mo: up to 0.015% (Paragraphs 69-73) and the content of B, Cu, etc. should not exceed 0.2 wt.% (Paragraph 168) with examples of Cu ranging from 0.011-0.017% (Table 1).
As both Kitano and Blumenau teach methods of forming steel sheets for automotive applications they are considered analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Kitano with the Cu content of Blumenau as this is considered a combination of conventionally known materials in a steel composition and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Modified Kitano teaches a method of manufacturing a plated steel sheet with composition and casting velocity overlapping that which is claimed and the courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside of those disclosed in the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 2, Kitano teaches where the stab is heated to 1100-1300 °C then rolled finishing at 870-1250 °C (Paragraphs 19 and 37), coiled at 450-640 °C (Paragraph 37), cold rolled with a reduction of 50-90% (Paragraph 38), and annealed at 900 °C or less (Paragraph 39). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 3, Kitano teaches where after casting, the steel slab is cooled with water of 0.5-4.0 L/kg of steel (Paragraph 36). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 4, Blumenau teaches where the steel is subjected to skin pass working with a mean roughness Ra of 1.0-2.5 µm (Paragraph 199). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 5, Blumenau teaches where the skin pass degree (e.g. reduction ratio) is 0.4-0.7% (Paragraph 199). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 6, Kitano teaches where galvanized sheet is subsequently alloy heat treated at 530 °C (Paragraph 41).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH DUMBRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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.
SETH DUMBRIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/SETH DUMBRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights