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 .
Status of Claims
No claim amendments are made in view of applicant’s response filed 12/15/2026. Therefore, claims 1-16 are currently under examination.
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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018-119242(JP242).
JP242 teaches a Zn plated steel wire[0066-0067] that additionally comprises a resin layer on the surface of the Zn plated steel wire, wherein the resin layer comprises 0.1-90% of a rust preventive agent [0024]. Table 1 of JP242 shows that the rust preventative agent may be present in the amount of 30% or 40% (see Example Nos. 7, 10, 19, 22, 26, 29, 32-33, 36-47 on Table 1), which reads on the claimed 30-40 mass% of anticorrosive additive amount. JP further teaches that the tensile strength of the resin coated steel wire is preferably 2800MPa[0040].
Regarding claims 1, although JP242 does not explicitly teach a galvanized steel sheet as claimed, the Zn plated steel wire is a galvanized steel product of a different shape. Since the difference is directed to the shape of the product, the examiner concludes that the claimed steel in the shape of a sheet is an obvious design choice. It would have been well within the skills of an ordinary artisan to have applied the resin coating to a galvanized steel product of any shape with expected success, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary.
Additionally, the claimed limitation of “…an anticorrosive additive that, in a test solution at 27°C in which the anticorrosive additive is dissolved to a saturation concentration in a 0.5 mass% aqueous NaCl solution, provides a galvanic current of 15µA/cm2 or less.” merely describes the property of the anticorrosive additive. Since JP242 teaches Zn phosphate as the rust preventive additive, which is the same as claimed anticorrosive agent, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the same property in the Zn phosphate rust preventive additive of JP242 including the same galvanic current as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, the instant limitation is directed to how the claimed anticorrosive additive behaves in a test solution, which does not materially change the claimed galvanized steel sheet(i.e. a process limitation in a product claim) to make it patentably distinct. Since the resin layer of the Zn plated steel wire of JP242 comprises the same anticorrosive agent as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the anticorrosive agent of JP242 to behave the same in the claimed test solution.
Regarding claims 3 and 6, JP242 further teaches that the resin layer has a thickness of 0.1-10µm[0038].
Regarding claims 4 and 7-9, JP242 further teaches that the rust preventive agent comprises zinc phosphate(Table 1).
Regarding claims 5 and 10-16, JP242 further teaches that the resin film comprises epoxy resin, acrylic resin, urethane resin, phenol resin as claimed (Table 1, [0077]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues that the claimed anticorrosive additive must be maintained within a narrow range of 30-40 mass% in order to achieve delayed fracture resistance, which proves critical to the instant application as shown by Comparative Examples 6-7 discussed in the instant specification wherein, the amounts of anticorrosive additive is outside of the claimed 30-40 mass% but within the broader JP242’s range of 0.1-90%.
The examiner does not find applicant’s argument convincing because JP242 discloses in several embodiments (see Example Nos. 7, 10, 19, 22, 26, 29, 32-33, 36-47 on Table 1) that the amount of anticorrosive additive is either 30% or 40%, which directly reads on the claimed 30-40 mass% anticorrosive additive amount(i.e. an anticipation type of rejection with respect to the claimed anticorrosive additive amount). Applicant’s arguments for criticality of the claimed anticorrosive additive amount of 30-40 mass% is only applicable to obviousness type of prior art rejection with respect to the claimed anticorrosive additive amount. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not effective to remove the anticipatory type of rejection, such as the rejection of anticorrosive additive amount based on the amounts disclosed by Examples Nos. 7, 10, 19, 22, 26, 29, 32-33, 36-47 on Table 1 of JP242.
Applicant further argues that an ordinary artisan would not optimize JP242 to arrive at the claimed 30-40mass% anticorrosive additive amount range.
The examiner does not find applicant’s argument convincing. As discussed above, the rejection for the claimed amount of anticorrosive additive is an anticipatory type of rejection based on the amounts of anticorrosive additives in multiple Examples in Table 1 of JP242. Therefore, the rejection cannot be overcome by rebuttal arguments based on feasibility of routine optimization, which can only be used to overcome obviousness type rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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