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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/06/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 6 is cancelled. Claims 1-5 and 7 are pending where claims 1 and 5 have been amended.
Status of Previous Rejections
The previous 35 USC § 103 rejections of the claims have been withdrawn in view of amendments to the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 6515360 B1 to Toda (US 20210040592 A1 has been relied upon as an English language equivalent) in view of JP 05247620 A to Sakai (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) and BR 102014025426-A2 to Faria et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Toda ‘360 discloses a hot-stamping formed body comprising a steel sheet which may be galvannealed (i.e. a zinc-plated layer which includes a Fe-Zn solid solution) comprising the following composition, with a specific example lying within the instantly claimed composition as follows:
Element
Claimed wt%
Toda ‘360 wt%
Toda ‘360 Ex 35 wt%
Overlaps/Lies within?
C
0.18-0.50
0.15-<0.35
0.31
Yes/Yes
Si
0.10-1.50
0.005-0.25
0.18
Yes/Yes
Mn
1.5-2.5
0.5-3.0
1.5
Yes/Yes
Al
0.001-0.100
0.0002-3.0
0.045
Yes/Yes
Ti
0.010-0.100
0-0.15
0.022
Yes/Yes
S
0-0.0100
0-0.10
0.0005
Yes/Yes
P
0-0.100
0-0.10
0.012
Yes/Yes
N
0-0.010
0-0.010
0.0031
Yes/Yes
Nb
0-0.05
0.01-0.15
0.022
Yes/Yes
V
0-0.50
≤impurity
≤impurity
Yes/Yes
Cr
0-0.50
0.05-1.00
0.42
Yes/Yes
Mo
0-0.50
0.005-1.00
0.012
Yes/Yes
B
0-0.010
0.0005-0.010
0.0024
Yes/Yes
Ni
0-2.00
0-3.00
≤impurity
Yes/Yes
REM+Ca+Co+Mg
0-0.030
≤impurity
≤impurity
Yes/Yes
Fe
Balance
Balance
Balance
Yes/Yes
Martensite
>90%
>90%
99%
Yes/Yes
(Toda ‘360, abstract, para [0030-0058, 0099, 0108-0112], Tables 1-1 to 3-3, Steel No 35)
Toda ’360 does not explicitly disclose that the zinc-plated layer includes a Γ phase and a cross-sectional area ratio of voids present in the zinc-plated layer is 15.0% or less.
Sakai discloses that the composition and temperature of galvannealing may be controlled to produce a galvannealed layer with a Γ phase and to suppress an area ratio of voids to 15% or less in order to provide a galvannealed steel sheet which is excellent not only in powdering resistance but also in chipping resistance (Sakai, para [0005-0006, 0014-0020]). Sakai further discloses a coating weight of 60 g/m2 (Sakai, para [0018]), but does not disclose the amount of Γ phase in said coating.
Faria discloses that controlling the conditions of galvannealing to produce a Γ phase of 10 to 40% on a FeZn coating is sufficient to form a thick Γ phase layer near the interface with the substrate to minimize Zn diffusion to the substrate during the heat treatment process, making the coating more homogenous and the substrate less susceptible to cracking (Faria, para [21, 47]).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the temperature and composition of the galvannealing of the hot-stamping formed body of Toda ‘360 in order to produce a galvannealed layer with a Γ phase and to suppress an area ratio of voids to 15% or less as suggested by Sakai, and to control the conditions of galvannealing to ensure 10-40% of the coating weight of 60 g/m2 of Sakai is Γ phase (i.e. 6-24 g/m2, within the claimed range of 5 to 150 g/m2) as suggested by Faria. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a galvannealed steel sheet which is excellent not only in powdering resistance but also in chipping resistance (Sakai, para [0005-0006, 0014-0020]) and to form a thick Γ phase layer near the interface with the substrate to minimize Zn diffusion to the substrate during the heat treatment process, making the coating more homogenous and the substrate less susceptible to cracking (Faria, para [21, 47]).
Regarding claims 2-4, Toda ‘360 Ex 35 lies within the instantly claimed ranges.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 6477980 B1 to Toda (US 20210102270 A1 has been relied upon as an English language equivalent) in view of JP 05247620 A to Sakai (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) and BR 102014025426-A2 to Faria et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Toda ‘980 discloses a hot-stamping formed body comprising a steel sheet which may be galvannealed (i.e. a zinc-plated layer which includes a Fe-Zn solid solution) comprising the following composition, with a specific example lying close to the instantly claimed composition as follows:
Element
Claimed wt%
Toda ‘980 wt%
Toda ‘980 Ex 8 wt%
Overlaps/Lies within?
C
0.18-0.50
0.35-<0.75
0.42
Yes/Yes
Si
0.10-1.50
0.005-0.25
0.21
Yes/Yes
Mn
1.5-2.5
0.5-3.0
1.5
Yes/Yes
Al
0.001-0.100
0.0002-3.0
0.051
Yes/Yes
Ti
0.010-0.100
0-0.15
0.030
Yes/Yes
S
0-0.0100
0-0.10
0.0003
Yes/Yes
P
0-0.100
0-0.10
0.012
Yes/Yes
N
0-0.010
0-0.010
0.0036
Yes/Yes
Nb
0-0.05
0.01-0.15
0.084
Yes/No
V
0-0.50
≤impurity
≤impurity
Yes/Yes
Cr
0-0.50
0.05-1.00
0.48
Yes/Yes
Mo
0-0.50
0.005-1.00
0.012
Yes/Yes
B
0-0.010
0.0005-0.010
0.0023
Yes/Yes
Ni
0-2.00
0-3.00
≤impurity
Yes/Yes
REM+Ca+Co+Mg
0-0.030
≤impurity
≤impurity
Yes/Yes
Fe
Balance
Balance
Balance
Yes/Yes
Martensite
>90%
>90%
97%
Yes/Yes
(Toda ‘980, abstract, para [0024-0038, 0075, 0082-0089], Tables 1-1 to 3-1, Steel No 8)
Steel No 8 of Toda ‘980 differs from the instant claims in that Steel No 8 of Toda ‘980 contains 0.084 wt% Nb, outside the instantly claimed range of 0-0.05 wt% Nb. However, Toda ‘980 more broadly discloses that the Nb content may be from 0.01-0.15 wt% (Toda ‘980, para [0031]), overlapping the instantly claimed range of 0-0.05 wt% Nb. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges of Nb of Toda ‘980 including the instantly claimed because Toda ‘980discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
Toda ‘980 does not explicitly disclose that the zinc-plated layer includes a Γ phase, wherein an adhesion amount of the Γ phase is 5 g/m2 to 150 g/m2 per side, and a cross-sectional area ratio of voids present in the zinc-plated layer is 15.0% or less
Sakai discloses that the composition and temperature of galvannealing may be controlled to produce a galvannealed layer with a Γ phase and to suppress an area ratio of voids to 15% or less in order to provide a galvannealed steel sheet which is excellent not only in powdering resistance but also in chipping resistance (Sakai, para [0005-0006, 0014-0020]). Sakai further discloses a coating weight of 60 g/m2 (Sakai, para [0018]), but does not disclose the amount of Γ phase in said coating.
Faria discloses that controlling the conditions of galvannealing to produce a Γ phase of 10 to 40% on a FeZn coating is sufficient to form a thick Γ phase layer near the interface with the substrate to minimize Zn diffusion to the substrate during the heat treatment process, making the coating more homogenous and the substrate less susceptible to cracking (Faria, para [21, 47]).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the temperature and composition of the galvannealing of the hot-stamping formed body of Toda ‘980 in order to produce a galvannealed layer with a Γ phase and to suppress an area ratio of voids to 15% or less as suggested by Sakai, and to control the conditions of galvannealing to ensure 10-40% of the coating weight of 60 g/m2 of Sakai is Γ phase (i.e. 6-24 g/m2, within the claimed range of 5 to 150 g/m2) as suggested by Faria. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a galvannealed steel sheet which is excellent not only in powdering resistance but also in chipping resistance (Sakai, para [0005-0006, 0014-0020]) and to form a thick Γ phase layer near the interface with the substrate to minimize Zn diffusion to the substrate during the heat treatment process, making the coating more homogenous and the substrate less susceptible to cracking (Faria, para [21, 47]).
Regarding claims 2-4, Toda ‘980 steel No 8 lies within the instantly claimed carbon and boron content ranges.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Instant claim 7 is directed to a hot-stamping formed body as set forth in the instant claims. The closest prior art of record is JP 6477980 B1 to Toda (US 20210102270 A1 has been relied upon as an English language equivalent) in view of JP 05247620 A to Sakai (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) and BR 102014025426-A2 to Faria et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) and JP 6515360 B1 to Toda (US 20210040592 A1 has been relied upon as an English language equivalent) in view of JP 05247620 A to Sakai (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) and BR 102014025426-A2 to Faria et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) as set forth in the above 35 USC 103 rejections. Instant claim 7 differs from both Toda references and Sakai at least in that Toda and Sakai require hot-dip galvannealing to produce a zinc plated layer with a Fe-Zn solid solution.
Response to Amendment
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 1/06/2026 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-5 based upon 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 6477980 B1 to Toda (US 20210102270 A1 has been relied upon as an English language equivalent) in view of JP 05247620 A to Sakai (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) and 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 6515360 B1 to Toda (US 20210040592 A1 has been relied upon as an English language equivalent) in view of JP 05247620 A to Sakai (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8, filed 1/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 6477980 B1 to Toda (US 20210102270 A1 has been relied upon as an English language equivalent) in view of JP 05247620 A to Sakai (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) and 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 6515360 B1 to Toda (US 20210040592 A1 has been relied upon as an English language equivalent) in view of JP 05247620 A to Sakai (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 6477980 B1 to Toda (US 20210102270 A1 has been relied upon as an English language equivalent) in view of JP 05247620 A to Sakai (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) and BR 102014025426-A2 to Faria et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) and 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 6515360 B1 to Toda (US 20210040592 A1 has been relied upon as an English language equivalent) in view of JP 05247620 A to Sakai (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) and BR 102014025426-A2 to Faria et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN D WALCK whose telephone number is (571)270-5905. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 AM - 6:30 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
/BRIAN D WALCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738