DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 9-16 are pending and presented for examination on the merits.
Claims 9-16 are new.
Information Disclosure Statement
Two (2) information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/30/2025 and 02/11/2026 were filed after the mailing date of the non-final Office action on 07/22/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS are being considered by the examiner.
Status of Previous Claim Objections
The previous objections to claims 3 and 4 are moot in view of the canceled status of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 9-12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2020/0353983 (A1) (also WO 2019/102424 (A1)) to Alvarez et al. (“Alvarez”).
US 2020/0353983 (A1) is the pre-grant publication of the national stage of PCT/IB2018/059288, which is published as WO 2019/102424 (A1). For brevity, all citations to Alvarez in this Office action will refer to the U.S. pre-grant publication unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 9, Alvarez teaches a method for producing a welded blank (method for manufacturing a welded blank). Abstract; para. [0001]. The welded blank is made by providing two precoated sheets, each sheet comprising a steel substrate with intermetallic alloy layer thereupon, and the welded blank can be subject to hot press forming. Para. [0022], [0023], [0099]-[0102], [0197]. The substrates of the precoated sheets may have different compositions and/or thicknesses (tailor welded blank). Para. [0002], [0259].
The method includes the following steps:
(a) hot dip coating the steel substrate in a bath of molten metal containing aluminum or aluminum alloy to form a precoating layer comprising metallic alloy layer and intermetallic alloy layer, the metallic alloy layer being aluminum, aluminum alloy, or aluminum-based alloy (preparing a plated steel sheet having a base steel sheet and an aluminum-based plating layer formed on one surface or both surfaces of the base steel sheet) (para. [0262]-[0265], [0398]-[0401]);
(b) subjecting the coated steel substrate to a pre-alloying treatment in order to form intermetallic layers containing compounds of the FexAly type (heat-treating the plated steel sheet so that the aluminum-based plating layer becomes an Al-Fe-based intermetallic alloy layer) (para. [0263], [0273]); and
(c) joining the precoated sheets via butt welding (subjecting the heat-treated plated steel sheet to butt welding) (para. [0024], [0288], [0293]).
Prior to butt welding, the precoated sheets are prepared by removing at least a portion of the precoating, including the metallic alloy layer and at least part of the intermetallic layer, at the weld edge (before the welding, a portion or an entirety of the Al-Fe-based intermetallic alloy layer located in a region to be welded is removed). Para. [0038], [0277], [0278], [0284]-[0286].
Regarding claim 10, Alvarez teaches that the metallic alloy layer is a layer of aluminum alloy further comprising silicon (wherein the aluminum-based plating layer further comprises Si). Para. [0266]-[0269].
Regarding claim 11, Alvarez teaches that the intermetallic alloy layer may be composed of different intermetallic sublayers such as Fe2Al5 and FeAl (the Al-Fe-based intermetallic alloy layer is comprised of a first layer including at least one of FeAl and Fe3Al and a second layer including Fe2Al5). Para. [0273].
Regarding claim 12, Alvarez teaches that the intermetallic alloy layer may be composed of different intermetallic sublayers such as Fe2Al5 and FeAl (the Al-Fe-based intermetallic alloy layer is comprised of a first layer including at least one of FeAl and Fe3Al and a second layer including at least one of Fe2Al5 and Al2Fe3Si3). Para. [0273].
Regarding claim 14, Alvarez teaches removal of at least one portion of the precoating at the weld edge. Para. [0283]. The metallic alloy layer of the precoating is removed. Para. [0285]. For the intermetallic alloy layer, only a fraction (e.g., 60%, 80%, 90%) of the initial thickness remains after removal. Para. [0285], [0286]. The mean thickness of the intermetallic alloy layer is typically between 2 and 8 micrometers. Para. [0271]. Thus, for 90% remaining of an intermetallic alloy layer that was initially 8 micrometers, the remaining thickness of the precoating after removal would be 7.2 micrometers (7.2 µm), which falls within the claimed range. A specific example in the prior art that falls within claimed ranges anticipates a claimed range. MPEP § 2131.03(I).
Regarding claim 16, Alvarez teaches that the welded blank can be subjected to hot press forming (after the butt welding, a hot press forming process is additionally performed). Para. [0099]-[0102], [0197], [0375]-[0378].
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez, as applied to claim 9 above, with evidence from T. Ericsson, "The Fe-C Phase Diagram," Principles of Heat Treating of Steels, ASM Handbooks Online, Vol. 4 (Heat Treating) (“Ericsson”).
Regarding claim 13, Alvarez teaches that the pre-alloying treatment (heat-treatment) takes place at a temperature between 700oC and 900oC. Para. [0273]. In the Fe-C phase diagram, the A1 (Ac1) temperature is 727oC. Ericsson at p. 1 – last paragraph; p. 2 – Table 2; pp. 3-4 of 5 (Fig. 1). Thus, the range of 700-900oC overlaps the claimed range because it encompasses temperatures that are less than Ac1.
The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select from among the prior art ranges because there is utility over an entire range disclosed in the prior art.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US 2021/0222276 (A1) (also WO 2019/231023 (A1)) to Kim et al. (“Kim”), with evidence from Ericsson.
US 2021/0222276 (A1) is the pre-grant publication of the national stage of PCT/KR2018/006244, which is published as WO 2019/231023 (A1), and will serve as the translation of its WO equivalent.
Regarding claim 13, Alvarez teaches that a pre-alloying treatment (heat treatment) temperature may comprise temperatures between 700oC and 900oC to obtain different intermetallic sublayers, such as Fe2Al5, FeAl3, FeAl, Fe6Al12Si5, and FeAl3 sublayers. Para. [0273]. However, Alvarez does not limit the alloying treatment to the aforementioned temperatures, as Alvarez teaches that a pre-alloying treatment temperature and holding time are chosen so as to alloy the precoating with the substrate. Para. [0273].
Kim is directed to an Al-Fe alloy plated steel sheet for hot press forming having excellent tailor welded blank (TWB) characteristics. Abstract; para. [0010]. To plate the steel sheet, the sheet is placed in a plating bath containing Al alloy containing Si and Fe. Para. [0082]. To form phases with the steel sheet and gradually increase Fe content in the plating layer, the plated steel sheet is batch annealed. Para. [0093].
Annealing creates a diffusion layer of FeAl(Si) and α-Fe and additional layer(s) containing Fe2Al5. Para. [0093]; FIG. 4. The annealing temperature may be as low as 450oC and as high as 750oC to ensure that the temperature is high enough to induce alloying but not so high that oxides are excessively formed on the surface. Para. [0096]-[0099].
In the Fe-C phase diagram, the A1 (Ac1) temperature is 727oC. Ericsson at p. 1 – last paragraph; p. 2 – Table 2; pp. 3-4 of 5 (Fig. 1). Thus, the range of 450-750oC overlaps the claimed range because it encompasses temperatures that are less than Ac1.
Because an objective in Alvarez is to form various types of sublayers of different intermetallic Fe-Al compounds, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have looked to the art to find various heat treatment temperatures and times, such as those disclosed in Kim, in order to form a specific intermetallic layer structure as desired. This enhances customizability because it permits the manufacturer to select the makeup of the coating layer as needed for a particular in-service use.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez, as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 15, Alvarez teaches that a removal zone extends over a width between 0.5 mm and 2 mm from the side face of the sheet (corresponds to width W in FIG. 3 of the instant specification). Para. [0284]. Usual weld widths are between 0.8 mm and 1.8 mm (corresponds to average width of weld metal zone, Wb, of the claim and FIG. 3 of the instant specification). Para. [0289].
An example weld width can be 1.3 mm (midpoint of the range 0.8-1.8 mm). This corresponds to a calculated Wb/2 to Wb range of 0.65 mm to 1.3 mm, which falls entirely within Alvarez’s range of 0.5-2 mm. Thus, Alvarez’s removal zone width meets the claimed range.
The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select from among the prior art ranges because there is utility over an entire range disclosed in the prior art.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US 2019/0001438 (A1) to Ehling (“Ehling”).
Regarding claim 15, Alvarez teaches that a removal zone extends over a width between 0.5 mm and 2 mm from the side face of the sheet (corresponds to width W in FIG. 3 of the instant specification). Para. [0284]. Usual weld widths are between 0.8 mm and 1.8 mm (corresponds to average width of weld metal zone, Wb, of the claim and FIG. 3 of the instant specification). Para. [0289].
Alvarez does not specify the numerical relationship between removal zone width and the weld width.
Ehling is directed to a method of preparing a pre-coated metal sheet for welding. Abstract. At least part of the pre-coating layer is removed before welding. Para. [0063]-[0066], [0074]-[0076]. The removal zone is 20-40% greater than the width of the molten zone that is obtained by welding. Para. [0219]. The width of the removal zone is such that after welding at least 0.1 mm or removal zone remains on each side of the molten zone. Para. [0219]. The removal width is slightly larger than the half-width of the molten zone obtained by welding (width of the removed intermetallic alloy layer is Wb/2 to Wb). Para. [0220].
The removal zone width is selected to correspond to widths well suited for industrial tools for such removal. Para. [0220]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have ensured that the removal zone width in Alvarez is slightly larger than the half-width of the molten zone, such as leaving at least 0.1 mm of removal zone on each side of the molten zone, because the wider width permits larger tools to pass through the weld zone to treat the area, as needed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that one of the references disclose the method operations of (i) preparing a plated steel sheet having a base steel sheet and an aluminum-based plating layer formed on one surface or both surfaces of the base steel sheet; (ii) heat treating the plated steel sheet so that the aluminum-based plating layer becomes an Al-Fe-based intermetallic alloy layer; and (iii) subjecting the heat-treated plated steel sheet to butt welding, wherein, before the welding, a portion or an entirety of the Al-Fe-based intermetallic alloy layer located in a region to be welded is removed. Applicant specifically asserts that the presently claimed invention includes a configuration in which the entire aluminum-based plating layer is heat-treated to become an Al-Fe-based intermetallic layer and then a portion or all thereof is removed, whereas Alvarez describes that only a portion of the plating layer is heat-treated to become an intermetallic alloy and then the metal alloy layer remaining on the intermetallic alloys is removed.
In response and with respect to the plating layer, the argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the invention as claimed. There is no language in the claim requiring that the entire aluminum-based plating layer be heat treated to become an intermetallic layer. The claim recites that the plating layer is formed on one or both surfaces and that the plated steel is heat treated so that the plating layer becomes an Al-Fe-based intermetallic alloy layer. The requirement is that an Al-Fe-based intermetallic layer is formed, not that the entire coating/plating layer is transformed such that all of it is converted to Al-Fe-based intermetallic layer. The term “entire” does not appear in the claims.
Applicant refers to FIG. 1 of the instant specification to show that the heat treatment is applied to the entire plating layer (20). However, the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., FIG. 1) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2145(VI), citing In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Even if the claims require the entire aluminum-based plating layer to be heat treated, Alvarez meets that limitation. Alvarez discloses that the precoating (5) is obtained by hot-dip coating (para. [0262]). Hot-dip coating involves immersing the substrate (3) (base steel sheet) into a bath of molten metal (para. [0262]). The substrate (3) reacts with the molten metal of the bath to form an intermetallic alloy layer comprising intermetallic compounds that include Fe and Al (para. [0263]). Alvarez discloses carrying out a pre-alloying treatment so as to alloy the precoating (5) with the substrate (3) over at least a fraction of the thickness of the precoating (5) (para. [0273]). The pre-alloying treatment produces an intermetallic alloy composed of different intermetallic sublayers composed of various Fe-Al or Fe-Al-Si compounds (para. [0273]). Figure 1 of Alvarez shows the precoating extending over the entire surface of the steel sheet. Thus, the hot-dip coating immersion and heat treatment of at least some fraction (i.e., a portion or more) of the steel sheet satisfies the claim interpretation put forth by Applicant.
With respect to the removal step, Alvarez discloses an embodiment where the intermetallic layer (9) remains only over a fraction of its initial thickness, such as only 60%, 80%, or 90% of its initial thickness (para. [0286]). If only a fraction of its initial thickness remains, it follows that at least some fraction was removed. This meets the claim limitation reciting removing a portion OR an entirety of the intermetallic alloy layer located in the region to be welded before the welding occurs.
Conclusion
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 VANESSA T. LUK whose telephone number is (571)270-3587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
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 D. 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.
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
May 06, 2026
Prosecution Insights