DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/12/26. As directed by the amendment: claims 1 and 10 have been amended; claims 6 and 8 have been cancelled; and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-5, 7, 9-11 and 13 are presently pending in this application.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over L. He et al, "Suppression of Liquid Metal Embrittlement in Resistance Spot Welding of TRIP Steel", 2019-01-31; Science and Technology of Welding and Joining (Year: 2019) (hereafter “He”) in view of Kojima (CN 104271789), Berkhout et al. (US 2013/0118647), and Sigler et al. (US 2017/0291246).
With regard to claim 1, He teaches a method for manufacturing a welded structure (“suppression of liquid metal embrittlement in resistance spot welding of TRIP steel”, Title), the method comprising: preparing two or more materials (two “Steel Sheet”, FIG. 1) to be welded that are zinc plated steel sheets (“ZN coating” along each surface of each of the two “Steel Sheet”, FIG. 1) provided with a base steel sheet (one of “Steel Sheet”, FIG. 1); stacking the materials to be welded (two “Steel Sheet”, FIG. 1) on top of each other (FIG. 1); positioning a welding rod electrode (upper and lower “Copper Electrode”, FIG. 1) at a portion to be welded of the material to be welded (location where each of the “Copper Electrode” abut and/or are adjacent to each of the “Steel Sheet” via each of the “Aluminum Interlayer”, FIG. 1) ; and interposing a filler metal (each of the “Aluminum Interlayer”, FIG. 1) between the material to be welded (two “Steel Sheet”, FIG. 1) and the welding rod electrode (upper and lower “Copper Electrode”, FIG. 1) and performing spot welding (“suppression of liquid metal embrittlement in resistance spot welding of TRIP steel”, Title), wherein each of the zinc plated steel sheets is comprised of a base steel sheet and a zinc-based plating layer is provided on at least one surface of the base steel sheet (“ZN coating” along each surface of each of the two “Steel Sheet”, FIG. 1), wherein alloying between the zinc plating layer (“ZN coating” along each surface of each of the two “Steel Sheet”, FIG. 1) and the filler metal (each of the “Aluminum Interlayer”, FIG. 1) proceeds during the spot welding to form an Al—Fe—Zn intermetallic compound alloy phase (welded sample in Table 6 teaches Spectrum 2 including a composition of Fe (39.47 wt-%), Al (56.05 wt-%), and Zn (1.64 wt-%) at an interface between the zinc plating layer (“ZN coating” along each surface of each of the two “Steel Sheet”, FIG. 1) and the base steel sheet (one of “Steel Sheet”, FIG. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
294
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
He does not teach including Manganese (“MN”) and a total content of Fe and Mn in the Al—Fe—Zn—Mn intermetallic compound alloy phase is 40 to 60 wt %; however, Kojima from the same field of endeavor directed toward spot welding galvanized steel plates to suppress LME crack formation teaches the addition of a Manganese portion of 1.0 to 3.0%: (“MN improves hardenability, and useful for inhibiting hot stamping molding of high intensity deviation of elements. In addition, MN also is promoting alloying in the alloying treatment of plating and helps to ensure the element concentration of FE in the plating layer.”, para. [0053]-[0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the He reference, such that the Copper portion of Spectrum 2 (Table 6, He) in the He prior art citation is replaced with Manganese, as suggested and taught by Kojima, for the purpose of providing improved hardenability and to ensure the element concentration of Fe in the plating layer (Kojima: para. [0054]).
With regard to the limitation of the base steel sheet is TWIP steel containing Mn and Al in a total content of 16.5 to 21 wt %, the instant written description of the present application explicitly states “TWIP steel containing manganese (Mn) and aluminum (Al) in a total content of 16.5 to 21 wt % in the steel, and the TWIP steel may have ultra-high-strength physical properties. However, the present disclosure is not limited thereto” (emphasis added), para. [0046] thus it is submitted the claimed range is not critical to the instant application. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is submitted that as the cited prior art teaches the claimed elements, this limitation related to the wt % of MN and AL would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reduce crack formation based upon the thickness of the steel sheets, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Notwithstanding the foregoing, Berkhout which is directed toward the same field of endeavor related to a method of producing an austenitic steel teaches the limitation of a TWIP steel containing Mn and Al in a total content of 16.5 to 21 wt % (“10-17% Mn 1.0-5% Al”, cl. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the He reference, such that TWIP steel containing Mn and Al in a total content of 16.5 to 21 wt %, as suggested and taught by Berkout, for the purpose of providing “a method of producing an austenitic steel sheet excellent in resistance to delayed cracking. It is also an object of this invention to provide a method of producing an austenitic steel sheet having an increased yield stress and excellent weldability….”, para. [0004]-[0005].
With regard to the limitation of the filler metal has a thickness of 40 to 180 μm, as He teaches that the filler metal has a thickness of 25 um (Table 3) and as Table 1 provides the thickness of the steel sheets, it is submitted that as the cited prior art teaches the claimed aforementioned thicknesses of the steel sheets and the filler metal, this limitation related to a thickness of 40 to 180 um would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adapt the filler metal thickness in view of the corresponding thickness of the metal sheets to reduce crack formation based upon the thickness of the steel sheets, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Notwithstanding the foregoing, assuming it was determined that such an adaptation was determined to not be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, Sigler is cited herein for teaching the aforementioned limitation and Sigler is directed toward the same field of endeavor of a method of resistance spot welding aluminum to steel is cited herein for teaching the aforementioned limitation: filler (152): “The reactive alloy surface layer 152 has a thickness 154 that preferably ranges from 2 μm to 100 μm or, more narrowly, from 5 μm to 30 μm. The steel workpiece 14 in this embodiment thus encompasses a wide variety of base steel substrates that include the reactive alloy layer 150 as an adhered surface layer 152. Taking into account the thickness of the base steel substrate 36 and the reactive alloy surface layer 152 … Three particularly preferred embodiments of the reactive alloy surface layer 152 are a galvanneal zinc-iron alloy layer, an electrodeposited zinc-nickel alloy layer, or an electrodeposited zinc-iron alloy layer.”, para. [0086]-[0087].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Hi reference, such that the filler metal has a thickness of 40 to 180 μm, as suggested and taught by Sigler, for the purpose of providing a delineation of the steel sheet (Sigler: para. [0086]).
With regard to claim 2, with regard to the limitation of the Al—Fe—Zn—Mn intermetallic compound alloy phase has a thickness of 0.5 to 2.0 μm, and is formed at an interval of 0.3 μm or less in a horizontal direction to the zinc plated steel sheet, it is submitted that as the cited prior art teaches the claimed elements (Al—Fe—Zn—Mn intermetallic compound alloy phase) this limitation would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reduce crack formation based upon the thickness of the steel sheets, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
.With regard to claim 3, with regard to the limitation of a ratio of a thickness of the filler metal to a thickness of the galvanizing layer (Tf/Tp) satisfies the following relational expression, in which Tp is the thickness of the zinc plating layer and Tf is the thickness of the filler metal, 5≤Tf/Tp≤22 [Relational Expression], it is submitted that as the cited prior art teaches the claimed elements (Al—Fe—Zn—Mn intermetallic compound alloy phase) this limitation would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reduce crack formation based upon the thickness of the steel sheets, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 4, He teaches the zinc plating layer has a thickness of 4 to 20 μm (“both materials were received in the zinc-coated condition with a coating thickness ~ 10 um”, pg. 1).
With regard to claim 5, He teaches the filler metal is a pure Al metal (“Aluminum Grade AA 8006”, Table 3).
With regard to claim 7, He teaches the filler metal is in a form of any one of a foil, a plate, and a wire (“the aluminum foil used in this study is a consumer grade foil….”, pg. 2).
With regard to claim 9, He teaches the zinc plating layer is any one of an electro-galvanizing layer, a hot-dip galvanizing layer, and a hot-dip galvannealed layer (“testing was carried out using galvanized (GI) TRIP 1100 and TRIP 1200 …. Both materials were received in the zinc-coated condition with a coating thickness ~ 10 um….”, pg. 1).
With regard to claim 10, He teaches a welded structure (“suppression of liquid metal embrittlement in resistance spot welding of TRIP steel”, Title) in which two or more materials (two “Steel Sheet”, FIG. 1) to be welded are stacked (two “Steel Sheet”, FIG. 1) and spot-welded (“suppression of liquid metal embrittlement in resistance spot welding of TRIP steel”, Title), wherein the material to be welded is a zinc plated steel sheet (“ZN coating” along each surface of each of the two “Steel Sheet”, FIG. 1) wherein the zinc plated sheet sheet is a base steel sheet (one of “Steel Sheet”, FIG. 1) and a zinc plating layer is provided on at least one surface of the base steel sheet are formed (“ZN coating” along each surface of each of the two “Steel Sheet”, FIG. 1), and an Al—Fe—Zn intermetallic compound alloy phase (welded sample in Table 6 teaches Spectrum 2 including a composition of Fe (39.47 wt-%), Al (56.05 wt-%), and Zn (1.64 wt-%) is included at an interface between the zinc plating layer (“ZN coating” along each surface of each of the two “Steel Sheet”, FIG. 1), and the base steel sheet positioned in a weld region (one of “Steel Sheet”, FIG. 1).
He does not teach including Manganese (“MN”) and a total content of Fe and Mn in the Al—Fe—Zn—Mn intermetallic compound alloy phase is 40 to 60 wt %; however, Kojima from the same field of endeavor directed toward spot welding galvanized steel plates to suppress LME crack formation teaches the addition of a Manganese portion of 1.0 to 3.0%: (“MN improves hardenability, and useful for inhibiting hot stamping molding of high intensity deviation of elements. In addition, MN also is promoting alloying in the alloying treatment of plating and helps to ensure the element concentration of FE in the plating layer.”, para. [0053]-[0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the He reference, such that the Copper portion of Spectrum 2 (Table 6, He) in the He prior art citation is replaced with Manganese, as suggested and taught by Kojima, for the purpose of providing improved hardenability and to ensure the element concentration of Fe in the plating layer (Kojima: para. [0054]).
With regard to the limitation of the base steel sheet is TWIP steel containing Mn and Al in a total content of 16.5 to 21 wt %, the instant written description of the present application explicitly states “TWIP steel containing manganese (Mn) and aluminum (Al) in a total content of 16.5 to 21 wt % in the steel, and the TWIP steel may have ultra-high-strength physical properties. However, the present disclosure is not limited thereto” (emphasis added), para. [0046] thus it is submitted the claimed range is not critical to the instant application. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is submitted that as the cited prior art teaches the claimed elements, this limitation related to the wt % of MN and AL would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reduce crack formation based upon the thickness of the steel sheets, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Notwithstanding the foregoing, Berkhout which is directed toward the same field of endeavor related to a method of producing an austenitic steel teaches the limitation of a TWIP steel containing Mn and Al in a total content of 16.5 to 21 wt % (“10-17% Mn 1.0-5% Al”, cl. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the He reference, such that TWIP steel containing Mn and Al in a total content of 16.5 to 21 wt %, as suggested and taught by Berkout, for the purpose of providing “a method of producing an austenitic steel sheet excellent in resistance to delayed cracking. It is also an object of this invention to provide a method of producing an austenitic steel sheet having an increased yield stress and excellent weldability….”, para. [0004]-[0005].
With regard to claim 11, with regard to the limitation of the Al—Fe—Zn—Mn intermetallic compound alloy phase has a thickness of 0.5 to 2.0 μm, and is formed at an interval of 0.3 μm or less in a horizontal direction to the zinc plated steel sheet, it is submitted that as the cited prior art teaches the claimed elements (Al—Fe—Zn—Mn intermetallic compound alloy phase) this limitation would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reduce crack formation based upon the thickness of the steel sheets, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 13, He teaches the zinc plating layer is any one of an electro-galvanizing layer, a hot-dip galvanizing layer, and a hot-dip galvannealed layer (“testing was carried out using galvanized (GI) TRIP 1100 and TRIP 1200 …. Both materials were received in the zinc-coated condition with a coating thickness ~ 10 um….”, pg. 1)..
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered and are addressed hereafter. New presented prior art rejections are included herein in response to the newly presented claim amendments.
Conclusion
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on 571-270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761