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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I: claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/25/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “high-strength” in claims 1-6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-strength” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what degree of strength would and would not be considered “high-strength,” which renders the metes and bounds of the claims indefinite.
The term “excellent plating adhesion and weldability” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “excellent plating adhesion and weldability” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what degrees of plating adhesion and weldability would be and would not be considered “excellent,” which renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “on one surface or both surfaces of the base steel sheet in lines 4-5 and later recites “the surface” in both lines 13 and 16. It is unclear which surface “the surface” is referring to in lines 13 and 16.
Claims 2-6 are dependent on claim 1 and are thus also rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the Al and Si composite oxide" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2 and is thus also rejected for the same reason.
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.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fushiwaki et al. (JP 2011-219782), hereinafter “Fushiwaki,” wherein an English machine translation is used and cited herein.
Regarding claim 1, Fushiwaki teaches a high-strength hot-dip galvanized steel sheet having excellent plating adhesion and weldability (Abstract, [0024], [0026], [0028]-[0037]), the base steel sheet comprising, by mass, 0.01-0.18% C, 0.02-2.0% Si, 1.0-3.0% Mn, 0.001-1.0% Al, and a balance of Fe and unavoidable impurities (Abstract), which overlaps with the instantly claimed chemical composition ranges. Fushiwaki teaches wherein the steel sheet is hot-dip galvanized on both sides ([0012]). Fushiwaki further teaches wherein the steel sheet has internal oxidation in a region up to 10 µm from the surface of the base steel sheet immediately below the galvanized layer ([0012], [0021], [0023], [0049]-[0050], [0069]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 1-5 µm below the surface of the base steel sheet.
Fushiwaki does not explicitly teach wherein a decarburization rate in a region from directly below the surface of the base steel sheet to 50 µm is 50% or more, as required by claim 1. However, Fushiwaki teaches a steel sheet with an overlapping chemical composition (Abstract), as discussed above, and further teaches a method of manufacturing the steel sheet comprising preparing a base steel sheet having the chemical composition, heating the steel sheet to a temperature higher than A⁰C (650-780⁰C) and lower than or equal to B⁰C (800-900⁰C) in a gas atmosphere having a dew point of -5⁰C to 90⁰C, with a specific example having a dew point of 10⁰C, and containing 10 vol% hydrogen with a balance being nitrogen and unavoidable impurity gases, and hot-dip galvanizing in a hot-dip galvanizing bath at 460⁰C (Abstract, [0012], [0021], [0023], [0045], [0056], [0068], Table 2: Steel No. 26). Note that the process of Fushiwaki is substantially similar to the process described in paragraph [0020] of the instant specification. Therefore, as Fushiwaki teaches a steel sheet with an overlapping chemical composition and a method of making that is substantially similar to that of the instant invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the steel sheet of Fushiwaki to have wherein a decarburization rate in a region from directly below the surface of the base steel sheet to 50 µm is 50% or more. In the case where “the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness has been established.” See MPEP §2112.01.
Regarding claim 2, Fushiwaki teaches wherein the internal oxidation region (i.e., internal oxide layer) includes Si- and Mn- based composite oxides ([0012], [0023], [0049]-[0050], [0069]) further containing Al ([0027]).
As to claim 3, Fushiwaki teaches wherein the oxides are present within the base steel grains within 1 µm from the grain boundaries ([0012], [0023], [0049]-[0050], [0069]), which reads on the oxide existing intermittently. Alternatively, as Fushiwaki teaches a steel sheet with an overlapping chemical composition (Abstract) and a method of making (Abstract, [0012], [0021], [0023], [0045], [0056], [0068], Table 2: Steel No. 26) that is substantially similar to that of the instant invention, as discussed above regarding claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the steel sheet of Fushiwaki to have wherein the oxide exists intermittently. In the case where “the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness has been established.” See MPEP §2112.01.
With respect to claim 4, Fushiwaki teaches wherein the steel sheet may have a tensile strength of 900 MPa and TS x EL ≥ 20000 ([0060], [0072]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed tensile strength and elongation ranges. Fushiwaki further teaches numerous examples with TS and EL falling within the instantly claimed ranges (Table 2). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Fushiwaki does not explicitly teach that the steel sheet has a yield strength of 600 MPa or more. However, as Fushiwaki teaches a steel sheet with an overlapping chemical composition (Abstract) and a method of making (Abstract, [0012], [0021], [0023], [0045], [0056], [0068], Table 2: Steel No. 26) that is substantially similar to that of the instant invention, as discussed above regarding claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the steel sheet of Fushiwaki to have a yield strength that is the same or overlapping with the instantly claimed range of 600 MPa or more. In the case where “the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness has been established.” See MPEP §2112.01.
Regarding claim 5, Fushiwaki teaches that no bare plating occurs ([0017]) and further teaches that the hot-dip galvanized coating is only rated as having a good appearance when there are no bare spots in the coating ([0057], [0058]), which indicates that 100% of the total area of the base steel sheet is hot-dip galvanized.
As to claim 6, Fushiwaki does not explicitly teach wherein the hot-dip galvanized steel sheet has an LME crack maximum length of 50 µm or less. However, as Fushiwaki teaches a steel sheet with an overlapping chemical composition (Abstract) and a method of making (Abstract, [0012], [0021], [0023], [0045], [0056], [0068], Table 2: Steel No. 26) that is substantially similar to that of the instant invention, as discussed above regarding claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the steel sheet of Fushiwaki to have wherein the hot-dip galvanized steel sheet has an LME crack maximum length of 50 µm or less. In the case where “the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness has been established.” See MPEP §2112.01.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY M LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0483. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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 (571)272-1177. 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.
/ANTHONY M LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734