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. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). However, no certified copy of English translation of foreign priority application has been provided. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 0 6 / 20 /2023, and 08 / 26 /202 4 are being considered by the examiner. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Group I I , claims FILLIN "Enter claim number(s)." 7-1 4, drawn to a product, a plated steel sheet for an exterior panel in the reply filed on 11 / 06 /2025 , is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, drawn to drawn to a method of manufacturing a plated steel sheet for an exterior panel , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Therefore, claims 7-14 are currently under examination on the merits. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 8-9 and 11-12 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. Claim 8 recites the limitation " the coating layer provided on the edge portion " in line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the coating layer provided on the edge portion" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 11 recites the limitation “other unavoidable impurities,” in line 2, renders the claim indefinite , because it does not provide any comparison or basis to indicate which impurities are “unavoidable.” The degree of avoidability would appear to depend on the process by which the claimed layer is prepared. When a claim refers to a variable object, it is indefinite when the examiner cannot readily ascertain the metes and bounds. [ See MPEP 2173.05(b)(II) ] . In the alternative, the claim refers to the subjective opinion of the practioner in saying what impurities are “unavoidable,” rendering the limitation indefinite. [ See MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV) ] . Appropriate correction is required. Claim 12 recites the limitation “other unavoidable impurities,” in line 2, renders the claim indefinite , because it does not provide any comparison or basis to indicate which impurities are “unavoidable.” The degree of avoidability would appear to depend on the process by which the claimed layer is prepared. When a claim refers to a variable object, it is indefinite when the examiner cannot readily ascertain the metes and bounds. [ See MPEP 2173.05(b)(II) ] . In the alternative, the claim refers to the subjective opinion of the practioner in saying what impurities are “unavoidable,” rendering the limitation indefinite [ See MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV) ] . Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 7-9 and 11-14 FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagami Takashi [ JPH0531451A ] (Machine translation) (Original provided in the IDS) and in view of Hideo Hara, et.al. [ US20200306892A1] (provided in the IDS) (hereafter Hara’892) . FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Regarding claim 7, Takashi teaches a plated steel sheet for an exterior panel, wherein a base steel sheet, a Zn plating layer, and a coating layer are sequentially stacked and provided, and the Zn plating layer comprises an edge portion ( a sheet metal is processed into a formed body of the desired shape by techniques such as cutting, bending and welding, is subjected to a zinc plating treatment to form a plated formed body, and a fluororesin coating is applied to the plated formed body. T he surfaces and cut edges are completely coated with zinc plating. This, together with the subsequent fluororesin coating treatment, significantly improves the corrosion prevention effect compared to conventional methods ) [Claim 1, section 0008-0009]. But Takashi is silent about the Zn plated layer is “ Zn-Al-Mg-based” and “the plating layer is removed by laser cutting”. However, Hara’892 teaches a part of a molten plate layer on an upper surface at the occasion of carrying out laser cutting on a Zn-plated steel sheet to cover the cut surface with the plate metal to avoid rusting [Section 0009-0010]. Hara’892 discloses a Zn plated layer is removed by laser cutting ( laser cutting method for a plated steel sheet, is provided with: cutting the plated steel sheet by irradiating the plated steel sheet covered with a plate metal with laser light ) [Section 0010, 0011 , 0012 and claim 17]. Hara’892 further teaches Zn plated layer is Zn-Al-Mg-based plated layer ( a steel sheet plated with zinc-alloy of 6% aluminum, 3% magnesium, and the balance of zinc ) [Section 0049]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention , to have Hara’892 ’s teachings to modify Takashi to produce a plated steel sheet for an exterior panel using Zn-Al-Mg based plating layer and a laser cutting t o improve the corrosion resistance and to avoid rust . Regarding Claim 8 -9 and 14 , all the discussions above claim 7 are applicable for claim 8 and 14 , in addition, Takashi teaches the coating layer provided on the edge portion has a thickness greater than or equal to a thickness of the Zn-Al-Mg-based plating layer ( zinc-plated layer is of approximately 10 μm on the surface of the steel sheet base ) [Section 0014] and (i n the fluororesin coating process, first, a primer coat is applied as a fluororesin undercoat to the entire surface of the molded body (including the outer and inner surfaces and cut edges) to form a primer coating film of about 15 μm ) [Section 0016] and (then a fluororesin coating film is of approximately 30 μm ) [Section 0017]. Takashi further teaches the formed body is plated with zinc to form a plated formed body, and then the plated formed body is coated with a fluororesin coating. Therefore, there is no loss of zinc plating at bends during sheet metal processing, at welded surfaces, cut edges, etc., and the corrosion prevention effect can be significantly improved compared to conventional methods [Section 0020] . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention , to have Takashi ’s teaching to produce a plated steel sheet with a coating layer t o reduce loss of zinc plating and to improve corrosion prevention effect significantly . Regarding Claim 11 and 12, all the discussions above claim 7 are applicable for claim 11 , wherein Takashi teaches Zn plated layer, but is silent about “ Zn-Al-Mg-based” material. However, Hara’892 ’s example, steel sheet is plated with zinc-alloy of 6% aluminum, 3% magnesium, and the balance of zinc [Section 0049]. Hara’892 ’s Zn-Al-Mg based plating layer composition is within the as recited range in the instant claim . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention , to have selected and produced plated layer with the composition from the teachings of Hara’892 ’s that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “ In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I]. Regarding Claim 13 , all the discussions above claim 7 are applicable for claim 13 , in addition, Takashi teaches he Zn-Al-Mg-based plating layer has a thickness o f 10 μm on the surface of the steel sheet base [Section 0014] Takashi ’s Zn-Al-Mg based plating layer thickness is within the as recited range in the instant claim . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention , to have selected and produced plated layer with the composition from the teachings of Takashi ’s that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “ In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I]. Claims FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagami Takashi [ JPH0531451A ] (Machine translation) (Original provided in the IDS) and in view of Hideo Hara, et.al. [ US20200306892A1] (provided in the IDS) (hereafter Hara’892) , a s applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Misako Akihiro et.al. [ JP4225524B2 ] . Regarding Claim 10 , all the discussions above claim 7 are applicable for claim 10 , Takashi is silent about the edge portion has a width of 100 µm or less . Hara’892 is silent about the about the edge portion has a width of 100 µm or less . However, Akihiro teaches zinc-based plated steel sheets are used in a wide range of fields such as automobiles, home appliances, and building materials, for the purpose of the ensuring a long term rust prevention effect [Section 0002]. Akihiro teaches a steel plate suitable for the welding joint portion of a galvanized steel sheet by laser lap welding to reduce welding defects and ensure an excellent weld appearance and joint strength [Section 0009]. Akihiro then teaches when welding three-dimensional parts such as car body parts of an automobile, there are few cases where the welding surfaces are completely in close contact with each other in actual welding. However, unless the gap is controlled, the effect is insufficient or not exhibited at all. In addition, it is conceivable to press the two steel plates with a pressing roll or the like so as to eliminate the gap. However, with this method alone, if the gap becomes too small due to excessive pressing, a portion with a small gap is continuous for a long time, the case where the portion is in close contact cannot be avoided [Section 0023]. Akihiro further teaches spatial modulation of the steel plate surface structure is also an effective means for providing a gap during laser lap welding. For example, the shape of the steel sheet surface is controlled in the order of 10 to 100 μm in the width and length direction of the steel sheet to give microscopic unevenness, and the steel sheet surface is about 100 to 1 mm in the width and length direction. In order to impart controlled unevenness, etc., can be selected, depending on the purpose and cost, and other requirements [Section 0023]. Akihiro’s width is within the as recited range in the instant claim . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention , to have selected a width of an edge from the teachings of Akihiro that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “ In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I]. Akihiro is analogues to the instant claim as well as Takashi and Hara’892 as Akihiro is in the field of zinc plated sheet for the external panel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention , to have Akihiro’s teachings to modify Takashi in view of Hara’892 to produce a zinc plated sheet for the external panel based on an intended use and depending on the purpose and cost, and other requirements of the application. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5421 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 11:00 AM - 7:00PM (EST) . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Merkling Sally can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)2726297 . 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. /NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738 /SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738