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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/10/2026 has been entered.
Status of claims
Claim 3 and 7-11 have been cancelled; Claim 1 has been amended; Claims 4-6 and 12-13 are withdrawn as non-elected claims. Claims 14-17 are added as new claims, Claims 1-2 and 14-17 remain for Examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim.
Allowance Subject matter
Claims 16-17 includes allowable subject matter.
Claims 16-17 are still objected to as depending from rejected independent claim(s) but would be allowed if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims since the cited prior art(s) does not specify the claimed Ni distribution (cl.16) and/or Fe distribution (cl.17) charactered by GDS analysis.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabata (US-PG-pub 2021/0355560, US 11,427,882 B2, thereafter PG’560) in view of Kim et al (US-PG-pub 2020/0190620 A1, updated as US 11,198,272 B2, thereafter PG’620).
Regarding claim 1 and 14-15, PG’560 teaches a coated steel member and coated steel sheet excellent in hydrogen embrittlement resistance in a corrosive environment for hot press (abstract and par.[0183] of PG’560), which reads on the claimed plated steel sheet for hot press as claimed in the instant claim. PG’560 teaches the Al-based coating with 0-1.0 mass% Ni (par.[0131] of PG’560). PG’560 provides working example #D17 in table 10-2 having 0.1 mass% Ni in the Al-based coating, which is within the claimed Ni range of 0.05-0.35 wt% as claimed in the instant claim. PG’560 teaches an Al-based alloy coated steel sheet (abstract, par.[0077] and [0183] of PG’560). But PG’560 does not specify concentration gradient Al based plating layer as claimed in the instant claim. however, applying a Al-based plating layer comprising an Al-rich layer and a concentration gradient layer is a well-known technique as demonstrated by PG’620. PG’620 teaches a steel sheet for a hot press formed member having excellent coating adhesion (Abstract and examples of PG’620). PG’620 teaches a concentration gradient in the Al alloy plated layer (abstract, claims, examples, par.[0013] and [0038] of PG’620), which reads on the claimed Al rich plating layer and the concentration gradient layer as claimed in the instant claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form Al rich plating layer and the concentration gradient layer as demonstrated by PG’620 for the Al-based alloy coated steel sheet of PG’560 in order to obtain a steel sheet for a hot press formed member having excellent coating adhesion (Abstract and examples of PG’620). The claimed process of analysis by GDS method in the instant claim 1 and 14-15 is recognized as a product-by-process limitation. The plated steel sheet manipulated by the steel sheet product composition and property itself. Therefore, the detail process of analysis by GDS method in the instant claim do not add weight on the patentability of the instant claims. MPEP 2113 [R-1].
Regarding claim 2, The comparison between the claimed alloy composition ranges and the example #A18 in table 1 of PG’560 has been listed in following table. All of the essential alloy composition ranges disclosed in the example #A18 in table 1 of PG’560 are within the claimed alloy composition ranges. It is noted the Ti range disclosed in the example #A18 in table 1 of PG’560 is outside the claimed Ti range. However, PG’560 teaches adjusting the Ti in range of 0.010-0.100 mass% (par.[0077]), which overlaps the claimed Ti range. Overlapping Ti range creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the Ti amount as claimed from the disclosure of PG’560 since PG’560 teaches the same Al-based coated steel sheet as claimed throughout whole disclosing range.
Element
From instant Claim 2 (mass %)
#A18 in table 1 of PG’560 (mass %)
Within range
(mass %)
C
0.07-0.5
0.33
0.33
Si
0.05-1
0.39
0.39
Mn
0.5-4
0.65
0.65
P
0.001-0.015
0.012
0.012
S
0.0001-0.02
0.0008
0.0008
Al
0.01-0.1
0.05
0.05
Cr
0.01-1
0.7
0.7
N
0.0010.02
0.004
0.004
Ti
0.01 or less
0.040
Adjusting range:
0.010-0.100 (par.[0077])
--
Overlap at 0.01
B
0.01 or less
0.0025
0.0025
Fe
Balance + impurities
Balance + impurities
Balance + impurities
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to Claims 1-2 and 14-15 have been considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the amended features as claimed in the instant claims, the Examiner’s position has been stated above.
Notes: Kim et al (JP 2025122113 A, with on-line translation) is cited as a reference only.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
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 J Johnson can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights