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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are pending wherein claims 1 and 4 are amended, claim 14 is canceled and claims 2 and 16-21 are withdrawn from consideration.
Status of Previous Rejections
The previous rejection of claims 1, 3-13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment to claims 1 and 4.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machado Amorim et al. (US 2015/0125714) in view of Kwak (KR 100815811 B1).
In regard to claims 1, 9 and 11, Machado Amorim et al. (‘501) discloses a process of treating metal sheets such as steel with Zn-Al-Mg coatings ([0010] and [0064]). The process includes coating each side of the steel [0017] with a hot dipped coating such as a preferred composition having 0.1 to 10 weight percent magnesium, 0.1 to 20 weight percent aluminum and balance zinc ([0021] and [0025]). Machado Amorim et al. (‘714) further discloses skin pass rolling [0029]. Machado Amorim et al. (‘714) further discloses applying oils to the steel substrate [0031]. Finally, Machado Amorim et al. (‘714) discloses a degreasing step to clean the outer surfaces [0054]. However, Machado Amorim et al. (‘714) does not specify modifying the surface of the cleaned substrate with low-pressure or atmospheric pressure plasma treatment of the surface with oxygen, air, argon forming gas or a mixture of oxygen and argon, oxygen, and air as process gas.
In the same field of endeavor, Kwak (KR ‘811) discloses after degreasing exposing to atmospheric pressure plasma while supplying argon and one kind of oxygen or nitrogen between the dielectric electrodes in order to form radicals at the surface that improve the plating wettability and adhesion at the time of hot dipping (pages 2-3 of Translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to have performed an atmospheric plasma treatment with argon and oxygen, as disclosed by Kwak (KR ‘811), after the degreasing (cleaning) step in the hot dipping process, as disclosed by Machado Amorim et al. (‘714), in order to form radicals at the surface that improve the plating wettability and adhesion at the time of hot dipping, as disclosed by Kwak (KR ‘811) (pages 2-3 of Translation).
In regard to claim 3, Machado Amorim et al. (‘714) discloses Zn-Al-Mg coatings [0041].
In regard to claim 4, Machado Amorim et al. (‘714) suggests winding into coils to reside in storage hangars for several months [0006].
In regard to claim 5, Machado Amorim et al. (‘714) suggest aging (Figure 5 and [0016]).
In regard to claim 6, Machado Amorim et al. (‘714) further discloses alteration steps by any suitable mechanical means such as brushing or shot blasting devices [0045-0046].
In regard to claim 10, Machado Amorim et al. (‘714) discloses hot rolling and cold rolling,
which would be types of forming [0025].
Claims 12-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machado Amorim et al. (US 2015/0125714) in view of Kwak (KR 100815811 B1) as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Xu (CN 102363875).
In regard to claim 12, Machado Amorim et al. (‘714) and Kwak (KR ‘811) disclose a method of hot dip galvanizing as set forth above with degreasing, but neither Machado Amorim et al. (‘714) nor Kwak (KR ‘811) specify wherein the surface would be phosphate.
Xu (CN ‘875) discloses using a degreasing liquid comprising trisodium phosphate in order to remove surface oil stain and lipid impurities [0007-0008].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to modify the hot dip galvanizing process, as disclosed by Machado Amorim et al. (‘714) in view of Kwak (KR ‘811), by using a degreaser comprising trisodium phosphate, as disclosed by Xu (CN ‘875), in order to remove the surface oil stain and lipid impurities, as disclosed by Xu (CN ‘875) [0007-0008].
In regard to claims 13 and 15, Machado Amorim et al. (‘714) in view of Kwak (KR ‘811) and further in view of Xu (CN ‘875) disclose the same or a substantially similar process relative to the instant invention. Therefore, the relative concentrations of C, O, Mg and/or Zn in a surface-bordering layer of the metallic coating, with a thickness equal to the typical XPS information depth, being substantially the same after between step III and after step VI would be expected and the same or a substantially similar semifinished product would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I. Xu (CN ‘875) also performs additional steps of drying moisture of corner iron from water [0114]. This would be sufficient to consider a semifinished product prior to this step.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims for the reasons set forth in the Office Action of December 18, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant primarily argues that claim 1 requires a specific sequence and the reference to Amorim et al. (‘714) teaches that oil is intended to be evenly distributed over the sheet and remain there to ensure better corrosion protection and cleaning and degreasing take place before the oil application. The Applicant further argues that in claim 1, oil is applied prior to cleaning and degreasing and Kwak (KR ‘811) teaches plasma treatment after the hot dip and Applicant’s sequence of steps provides improved results.
In response, the Examiner notes that selection of any order of process is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C). While Applicant argues that there are improved results based on following the claimed sequence, the Examiner has not seen evidence of such improved results based on the sequence of steps claimed relative to the prior art sequence of steps.
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 Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 4 pm.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759