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 without traverse of invention group II, claims 10-18, in the reply filed on 6/22/226 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/22/2026.
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 12-13, 15 and 17 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “a total cold rolling degree of at least 50%”, and the claim also recites “or 60% or 65%” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 13 recites the broad recitation “a final annealing temperature in a range between 550°C and 700°C”, and the claim also recites “in particular 550°C and 650°C or 550°C and 620°C or 550°C and 600°C”, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 15 recites the broad recitation “a total annealing time whose lower limit is 20 … hours”, and the claim also recites “or 25 or 30 hours”, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 17 recites the broad recitation “a annealing temperature of 650°C-750°C”, and the claim also recites “preferably 690°C - 725°C”, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 10-12, 14-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023/052814 (WO814).
WO814 teaches a method of manufacturing a cold-rolled steel sheet comprising:
Melting and continuous casting steel into a slab(pg 7 ln 25 – pg 8 ln 2);
Hot rolling the slab into a hot strip(pg 8 ln 3-14);
Cold rolling the hot strip into a cold-rolled sheet and
Final annealing of the cold-rolled steel sheet;
wherein the chemical composition of the steel applies to the claimed composition as follows:
Chemical composition
Instant application(wt%)
WO814 (wt%) (abstract)
C
0.05-0.09
0.05-0.12
Mn
1.0-2.0
1.0-2.0
V
0.02-0.1
0-0.1
Nb
0-0.3
0.01-0.1
Ti
0-0.3
0-0.1
Si
< 0.3
0.01-0.5
Al
< 0.1
0.01-0.1
Ni
< 0.35
0.01-0.1
Co
< 0.2
-
N
< 0.04
0-0.09
S
< 0.04
0-0.09
P
< 0.1
0-0.09
Mo
< 0.3
0-0.5
Ca
< 0.2
0-0.005
Balance Fe & unavoidable impurities
Balance Fe & unavoidable impurities
Balance Fe & unavoidable impurities
Regarding claim 10, the steel composition as taught by WO814 comprises the same amount of Mn, V, Nb, Ti, Al, Ni, Co, P and Ca. The amounts of C, Si, N and S in the steel composition of WO814 overlap the claimed amounts of C, Si, N and S. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. the selection of claimed amounts of C, Si, N and S from the amounts of C, Si, N and S in the steel of WO814 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since WO814 discloses the same utilities as the amounts of C, Si, N and S.conit
Regarding claim 11, WO814 further teaches a hot rolling end temperature of >850°C (pg 8 ln 15-17), which encompasses the claimed hot rolling end temperature. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. The selection of claimed hot rolling end temperature from the hot rolling end temperature of WO814 would have been obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art since WO814 teaches the same utility in its disclosed hot rolling end temperature.
Regarding claim 12, WO814 further teaches that the cold rolling with a reduction of 35-90%(pg 9 ln 5-6), which encompasses the claimed cold rolling reduction %. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. The selection of claimed cold rolling reduction % from the cold rolling reduction % of WO814 would have been obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art since WO814 teaches the same utility in its disclosed cold rolling reduction %.
Regarding claims 14-15, WO814 further teaches batch annealing of the cold rolled steel, which reads on the claimed final annealing for 30min-120 hours(pg 10 lines 4-5), which encompasses the claimed batch annealing time. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. The selection of claimed batch annealing time from the batch annealing time of WO814 would have been obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art since WO814 teaches the same utility in its disclosed batch annealing time.
Regarding claim 18, WO814 further teaches coiling the hot-rolled steel sheet at 460-625°C(pg 8 ln 24-28), which encompasses the claimed coiling temperature. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. The selection of claimed coiling temperature from the coiling temperature of WO814 would have been obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art since WO814 teaches the same utility in its disclosed coiling temperature.
Claim(s) 13 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023/052814 (WO814), and further in view of CN 102251192(CN192).
The teachings of WO814 are discussed in section 7 above. However, WO814 does not explicitly teach that the final annealing is by continuous annealing.
CN192 teaches a method to manufacture steel sheet, comprising casting, hot rolling, cold rolling and final annealing[0026-0031, 0062-0066], wherein the final annealing can be contini8ous annealing at temperature 650-900°C[0031,0066].
Regarding claims 13 and 16-17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the finish annealing by continuous annealing at 650-900°C as taught by CN192 into the process of WO814 in order to ensure complete recrystallization and grain growth and recrystallization texture as taught by WO814.
Additionally, the finish annealing temperature as taught by WO814 in view of CN192 overlaps the claimed finish/continuous annealing temperature. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP2144.05. The selection of claimed finish/continuous annealing temperature from the finish/continuous annealing temperature of WO814 in view of CN192 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since WO814 in view of CN192 teach the same utilities in their disclosed finish/continuous annealing temperature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOIS L ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1248. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45.
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 571-272-1401. 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.
LOIS ZHENG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/LOIS L ZHENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights