DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 and 7-19 are pending, and claims 1-5 and 8-18 are currently under review.
Claim 6 is cancelled.
Claims 7 and 19 are withdrawn.
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 Amendment
The amendment filed 1/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 7-19 remain(s) pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/30/2025.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azuma et al. (US 2014/0234657) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2004/0234807).
Regarding claim 1, Azuma et al. discloses a hot dip galvanized steel having a composition as seen in table 1 below [abstract, 0029]. Azuma et al. further teaches that the galvanized layer includes Fe in an amount of 7 to 15 weight percent [0054]. Azuma et al. also teaches a microstructure which includes a balance of ferrite, 20% to 90% of a combination of both martensite and bainite, as well as up to 8% retained austenite and up to 10% pearlite [0025-0026]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the composition and microstructure of Azuma et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Azuma et al. further discloses controlling oxide inclusions on a surface of the base steel [abstract]; however, Azuma et al. does not expressly teach an amount as claimed. Suzuki et al. discloses that it is known to control an oxide amount to be 0.01 to 1 g/m2 to achieve desirable surface adhesion on the base steel [0170]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the steel of Azuma et al. to have an oxide amount disclosed by Suzuki et al. for the aforementioned purpose, which overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The examiner notes that “surface” as taught by Suzuki et al. would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to refer to the surface of the base steel (ie. depth of 0 micrometers) absent a specific teaching to the contrary, which meets the claimed range.
Table 1.
Element (wt.%)
Claim 1 (wt.%)
Azuma et al. (wt.%)
C
0.09 – 0.17
0.05 – 0.4
Si
0.3 – 1.1
0.5 – 3
Mn
1.9 – 2.7
1.5 – 3
P
0 – 0.1
0 – 0.04
S
0 – 0.05
0 – 0.01
Al
0.01 – 0.2
0 – 2
N
0 – 0.1
0 – 0.01
Fe & Impurities
Balance
Balance
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned prior art discloses the steel of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the aforementioned microstructure of Azuma et al. further overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, the aforementioned prior art discloses the steel of claims 1-2 (see previous). The examiner notes that the aforementioned Fe content of Azuma et al. further overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 4 and 9-11, the aforementioned prior art discloses the steel of claims 1-3 and 8 (see previous). Azuma et al. further teaches a plating amount of 5 to 100 g/m2 per surface, which overlaps with the claimed range [0056]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 5 and 12-18, the aforementioned prior art discloses the steel of claims 1-4 and 8-11 (see previous). Azuma et al. further teaches an inclusion of Nb of 0.005 to 0.3 weight percent among others, which overlaps with the claimed range [0029]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/20/2026, with respect to the previous 103 rejections 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 Azuma et al. as explained above.
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 NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734