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 .
Response to Arguments
The claim objections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(d) rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments except for claim 8, which was not addressed by amendment or argument. Additionally, new 112(b) rejections are entered over Applicant’s amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Chen (US 2020/0071789) and Rijkenberg et al. (WO 2021/123130) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments. However, new grounds of rejection are entered in view of Applicant’s amended claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “γ-fibre” first appears in claim 1, but is defined in claim 9. Claim 1 recites “Ti_sol”, but claim 8 recites “Tisol” 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.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “C/Ti_sol+V”. This limitation is indefinite because the claim does not provide how Ti_sol is calculated. The claim also does not specify what is meant by the symbols ‘C’ and ‘V’ in the formula. For purposes of examination, it is presumed to be calculated according to the formula which appears in claim 8, and ‘C’ and ‘V’ refer to the weight percent of each element.
Claim 1 recites:
∑
i
=
5
65
/
R
M
O
D
,
i
-
M
M
O
D
,
i
/
This equation is indefinite because it does not provide definitions for i, RMOD,i or MMOD,i. Additionally, it is unknown what operation is signified by the slashes ‘/’. For purposes of examination, the equation is interpreted according to [0076] of the corresponding US PGPub for this application, with the slashes presumed to indicate absolute value.
Claim 8 recites: “Tisol is 2.0 to 5.0”. However, Claim 8 also specifies that “Tisol = Ti – (48/14) × N”, with Ti and N represented by their respective weight percents in the steel composition. Claim 1 requires Ti to be between 0.07% - 0.15%. It is therefore impossible for Tisol to be greater than 0.15. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been ignored.
Claim 9 recites “wherein γ-fibre, θ-fibre, and α*-segment are X-ray random intensity ratios”. This limitation is indefinite. The specification states: “The α*-segment is here defined as the segment of the α-fibre in the φ2=45° section of Euler space or Orientation Distribution Function (ODF) running from the {115}<110> to the {223}<110> (and including the X-ray random intensity ratios of these outer two texture components), which covers the 15° to 45° range on the α-fibre” (see [0033] of the US PGPub). This is different from what is recited in the claim. For purposes of examination, it is presumed the α*-segment is as defined by the specification.
Dependent claims not addressed are indefinite by virtue of dependence from an indefinite claim.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buttgen et al. (WO 2024/061729).
Regarding claims 1-7, 10-12, 14, 17, and 20-22, Buttgen discloses a hot-rolled steel sheet for a pipe having a microstructure of at least 90%, preferably at least 98%, bainite (¶ 54). Buttgen teaches the following composition compared to the claimed composition, in wt%:
Claim 1
Add’l Claims
Buttgen, ¶¶ 55-70
C
0.06%-0.12%
0.070%-0.12% (cl. 3)
0.07%-0.10% (cl. 17)
0.03%-0.07%
Mn
1.20%-2.20%
1.40%-2.20% (cl. 2)
1.40%-2.10% (cl. 17)
1.40%-1.90%
Ti
0.07%-0.15%
≥0.08% (cl. 4)
0.09%-0.13% (cl. 17)
<0.10%
Si
≤0.65%
0.10%-0.65% (cl. 5)
0.25%-0.50% (cl. 17)
0.031%-0.60%
Al
≤0.10%
-
<0.10%
P
≤0.02%
-
<0.05%
S
≤0.01%
-
<0.01%
Nb
≤0.03%
≤0.025% (cl. 7)
≤0.02% (cl. 17)
<0.15%, pref. 0.0010%-0.080% (8)
N
≤0.01%
-
<0.01%
Fe
Balance
-
Balance
Optional
-
Cr
≤0.25%
≤0.10% (cl. 6)
<0.50%
Mo
≤0.10%
-
<0.30%
V
≤0.30%
-
<0.010%
Cu
≤0.20%
-
<0.30%
Ni
≤0.50%
-
<0.20%
B
≤0.005%
-
<0.0050%
The prior art composition overlaps the claimed composition, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Regarding C/(Ti_sol+V), based on the possible values of Ti, N, C, and V, the smallest possible value of C/(Ti_sol+V) is about 0.27. In addition, the steel has a yield strength of at least 485 MPa, preferably at least 520 MPa (¶ 74); a tensile strength of at least 570 MPa, preferably at least 800 MPa (¶ 73); an elongation (A50) of at least 10%, preferably at least 20% (¶ 75). This overlaps the claimed properties, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Specifically, regarding claim 14, Buttgen teaches the steel strip is produced by the following process:
Claim 14
Buttgen
Casting a slab and reheating to 1050-1260°C, or casting a slab for immediate hot rolling
Casting, followed by reheating to 1100°C – 1350°C, preferably 1200°C-1290°C (¶¶ 15-16)
Hot rolling at a finish rolling temperature between 960°C and Ar3+20°C
Hot rolling with finish temperature of 750°C to 950°C (¶ 17)
Accelerated cooling at a rate of 50-150°C/s to an intermediate temperature of 500-600°C with run-out table
First average cooling rate from hot-rolling to a range within a coil temperature + 80°C and a coil temperature + 40°C at a rate of 10-180 K/s (31-32), with higher rates leading to bainitic microstructure (¶ 33)
Accelerated cooling at a rate of 1-30°C/s to a coiling temperature with run-out table
Second average cooling at 0.1-10 K/s to the coiling temperature (¶¶ 31, 34)
Coiling at 450-580°C
Coiling at 360°C -600°C, preferably 430°C-520°C (¶ 20)
Cooling to ambient temperature
Inherent
Optional pickling
-
Optional coating
-
The process of the prior art is similar to the claimed process and recites overlapping processing parameters, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Buttgen does not expressly teach the steel strip has the claimed Misorientation Distribution index, average grain size by number, total high-angle grain boundary length, γ-fiber X-ray random intensity ratio, or work of fracture. However, as discussed above, the steel strip of Buttgen has a substantially similar composition and is produced by a process substantially similar to the claimed process for making the claimed invention. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the prior art product to exhibit the same properties as those claimed, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, based on the values of C (0.03%-0.07%), Ti (0-0.10%), N (0-0.10%), Nb (0-0.15%), V (0-0.010%), and Mo (0-0.30%) for a steel having the composition of Buttgen, the mathematical expression of claims 8 and 18 has a minimum value of about 3.6. This overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Buttgen does not expressly teach the steel strip has the claimed T value. However, the steel strip of Buttgen has a substantially similar composition and is produced by a process substantially similar to the claimed process for making the claimed invention. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the prior art product to exhibit the same T value as that claimed, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claims 15-16, Buttgen teaches the steel strip is suitable for pipe manufacturing (¶ 1). Automobile parts include pipes (¶ 2); thus, the prior art is considered to include automotive components.
Regarding claim 23, inclusion of boron is optional (¶ 67).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buttgen et al. (WO 2024/061729), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Imai et al. (US 2004/0166360).
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Buttgen does not expressly teach a metallic coating layer provided on the steel strip. Imai teaches providing a zinc alloy layer on a steel sheet (¶ 18) prior to its forming into a pipe (¶ 49). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a metal zinc coating as taught by Imai, on the steel sheet of Buttgen, because zinc coatings provide corrosion resistance (¶ 18).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Song et al. (US 2024/0254585) discloses a steel sheet having a similar composition and method of manufacturing, but has a tensile strength outside of the claimed range. Rijkenberg et al. (WO 2023/144019) discloses a steel sheet having a similar composition, MOD index, and manufacturing process as that claimed; however, Rijkenberg is disqualified as prior art under 102(b)(2)(C).
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 XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights