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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments/ Status of Claims
An amendment, filed 08/19/2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 and 11-14 are currently pending.
Claim 1-6 are withdrawn.
Claim 7-9 and 11-12 have been amended, amendments finds support in the specification.
Claim 10 has been cancelled.
Therefore, claim 7-9 and 11-14 are currently under consideration for this office action.
Status of Previous Rejections
The previous 35 USC § 112(a) rejections of the claims 8-9, and 35 USC § 112(b) rejections of the claims 7-9 and 11-14 have been withdrawn, due to amendments of the claims.
The previous 35 USC § 103 rejections of the claims 7-9 and 11-14 have been withdrawn, due to amendments of the claims.
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 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideo Hara, et.al. [US20200306892A1] (provided in the IDS) (hereafter Hara), and further in view of Tagami Takashi [JPH0531451A] (Machine translation) (Original provided in the IDS).
Regarding claim 7, and 11-12, Hara teaches a plated steel sheet, comprising a base steel sheet; a Zn-Al-Mg-based plating layer on the base steel sheet (a Zn-plated steel sheet, see Hara’s [0010]),
wherein the plated steel sheet comprises an edge portion formed by laser cutting, and wherein the Zn-Al-Mg-based plating layer is removed at the edge portion to expose the base steel sheet (laser cutting method for a plated steel sheet: cutting the plated steel sheet by irradiating the plated steel sheet covered with a plate metal with laser light, emitting assist gas onto a cut surface of the plated steel sheet, the cut surface being formed during the cutting, see Hara’s [0010] – [0012] and claim 1, 17). Hara 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, see Hara’s [0049]). Hara further teaches the cut surface being formed in the step of cutting, the plate metal fused by irradiation of the laser light flow to the cut surface so as to cover the cut surface with the plate metal see Hara’s [0011]).
Although Hara is silent about the “wherein a width of the edge portion at which the base steel sheet is exposed is 100 µm or less, and wherein the coating layer is provided on the exposed base steel sheet at the edge portion”, claim recites “width of the edge portion at which the base steel sheet is exposed is 100 µm or less” without reciting the lower limit of the width of the edge portion, and the page 12 of the instant specification of the disclosure also does not have any lower limit of the width, i.e. therefore, the width of the edge portion can be zero. Therefore, Hara meets the limitation of the wherein a width of the edge portion at which the base steel sheet is exposed is 100 µm or less.
But Hara is silent about “the coating layer is provided on an upper surface of the Zn-Al-Mg-based plating layer”.
However, 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. The 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) (Takashi’s Claim 1, [ 0008]-[0009]).
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 teachings of a fluororesin coating along with zinc plating to cover the surfaces and the cut edges to modify Hara’s Zn-Al-Mg based plated steel sheet to improve the corrosion resistance for using an exterior panel.
Regarding Claim 8 and 14, all the discussions above claim 7 are applicable for claim 8 and 14, however, Hara is silent about the thickness of the coating and Zn-Al-Mg-based plating layer.
However, 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 (in 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 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 modify Hara for producing a plated steel sheet with a coating layer to reduce loss of zinc plating and to improve corrosion prevention effect significantly.
Regarding Claim 9, all the discussions above claim 7 are applicable for claim 9, however, Hara is silent about the thickness of the coating.
However, Takashi teaches the coating layer provided on the edge portion may have a thickness equal to or greater than half of a thickness of the coating layer provided on an upper surface of the Zn-Al-Mg-based plating layer (in 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 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]. As Takashi’s coating covers the outer and inner surfaces and cut edges, therefore, Takashi’s coating layer on the edge portion and on an upper surface of the Zn-Al-Mg-based plating layer are the same film would have same thickness.
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 modify Hara for producing a plated steel sheet with a coating layer to reduce loss of zinc plating and to improve corrosion prevention effect significantly.
Regarding Claim 13, all the discussions above claim 7 are applicable for claim 13, Hara is silent about the thickness of the Zn-Al-Mg-based plating layer.
However, Takashi teaches the Zn-Al-Mg-based plating layer has a thickness of 10 μm on the surface of the steel sheet base [Section 0014], which is within the as recited range in the instant claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 08/19/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC § 103 rejections of the claims have been acknowledged but does not seem persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that “Hara describes laser cutting a plated sheet but intentionally causes molten plating metal to flow onto and cover the cut surface, see Hara paragraphs [0010] through [0012] and claim 17. Hara therefore does not leave the base steel sheet exposed at the edge in the final plated steel sheet”, does not seem persuasive, as Hara clearly teaches two steps laser cutting method for a plated steel sheet:
cutting the plated steel sheet by irradiating the plated steel sheet covered with a plate metal with laser light, and then
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Cutting at the edge)]emitting assist gas onto a cut surface of the plated steel sheet, the cut surface being formed during the cutting, (see Hara’s [0010] – [0012] and claim 1, 17), for better understanding Examiner interpreted a schematic view of the Hara’s teachings, wherein Hara’s laser cutting step which exposed at the cut surface and the cut surface is then covered with a coating.
And with respect to Applicant’s amended exposed edge potion of the steel sheet, claim recites, “width of the edge portion at which the base steel sheet is exposed is 100 µm or less” without reciting the lower limit of the width of the edge portion, and the page 12 of the instant specification of the disclosure also does not have any lower limit of the width, i.e. therefore, the width of the edge portion can be zero, therefore, Hara still meets the limitation of the wherein a width of the edge portion at which the base steel sheet is exposed is 100 µm or less.
In response to applicant's argument that “Tagami begins with an unplated steel sheet, forms and cuts the sheet, then zinc plates the entire formed body, including its cut edges, and thereafter applies primer and fluororesin coatings, see Tagami paragraphs [0008], [0009], and [0014] through [0017]. Tagami accordingly places coating over zinc plated cut edges, not directly on an exposed base steel edge next to a retained Zn-Al-Mg-based plating layer. The two references do not describe the location relationship required by claim 7”, does not seem persuasive, because “the location relationship required by claim 7” has been discussed above, and for rest of the argument about Tagami, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, primary reference Hara teaches laser cutting of Zn-Al-Mg plated steel and covering the cut surface with a coating layer, and Takashi teaches a coating over Zn-Al-Mg plated steel, together improves corrosion resistance and reduces loss of the Zn (Takashi’s Claim 1, [ 0008]-[0009]).
In response to applicant's argument about Kumon, “Kumon's coating is already present before the sheet is shear cut”, seems persuasive, as Kumon’s undercoat, top coat are deposited over Zn plated steel sheet, is already over there before cut (see Kumon’s [0030]) as claim requires coating after the cut and Kumon teaches when cut end exposed, at a relatively early stage after the start of exposure, the components in the coating rapidly combine with the eluted components of the plated metal to form a highly protective coating, which in particular makes it possible to significantly suppress the occurrence of edge creep ((see Kumon’s [0030]), which is different process than Hara’s laser cut and then covering the laser cut portion. Therefore, rejection over Kumon has been withdrawn and Kumon is not being used in this rejection.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of the claims 7-9 and 11-14 have been maintained but rewritten due to amendment. (please see the corresponding rejection section for further details).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5421. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Merkling Sally can be reached on (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
/DANIELLE M. CARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
9/18/2026
Prosecution Insights