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
Status of Claims
Responsive to the amendment filed 8 May 2026 no changes are made to the claims. Claims 1-3 are currently under examination.
Status of Previous Rejections
Responsive to the amendment filed 8 May 2026 the prior rejections are maintained.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170350434 A1 (hereinafter “Maruyama”).
Regarding claim 1, Maruyama teaches a laser welded joint for a vehicle component (See title). Maruyama teaches that the hot dip galvanized steel sheets are butt welded using YAG laser (see EXAMPLES at [0166]-[0189]). Maruyama teaches that the invention solves problems with the prior art tailored blank weldments (see [0016]-[0022]). Maruyama teaches that a tailored blank is made ([0054] or [0217]). Maruyama teaches that the welded joint metal includes a composition that overlaps the claimed composition (See claim 1 and claim 2). Maruyama teaches examples of the welded joint metal composition in TABLE 2. The difference between instant claim 1 and Joint No 26 of Maruyama is that Joint 26 does not include chromium in an amount as claimed. However the broad composition of the weldment includers up to 5% of chromium (claim 1) and Maruyama teaches the purpose of adding Cr is to control the microstructure ([0109]-[0115]). Maruyama teaches that the steels may be plated and envisions that Al may be a plating material (see claim 6 and [0140]-[0141]). It would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to have altered the joint 26 as by aluminum plating and using more chromium because Maruyama teaches that these are suitable alternate embodiments for the steel join (cited above). The combination of known elements in the field of endeavor of tailored blanks in order to achieve predictable results would have been prima facie obvious.
Regarding the Relational Expressions 1 thru 4, Maruyama does not teach any value for these expressions, or recognize these relationships. However, what is claimed is obvious because the modified steel sheet composition comprising up to 5% of chromium would have overlapped the claimed ranges for the expressions. However, it is well settled that there is no invention in the discovery of a general formula if it covers a composition described in the prior art, In re Cooper and Foley 1943 C.D. 357, 553 O.G. 177; 57 USPQ 117, Saklatwalla v. Marburg, 620 O.G. 685, 1949 C.D. 77, and In re Pilling, 403 O.G. 513, 44 F(2) 878, 1931 C.D. 75. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the selection of the proportions of elements would appear to require no more than routine investigation by those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Austin, et al., 149 USPQ 685, 688.
Regarding claim 2, Maruyama teaches that an Zn-Al-Si-Mg plating may be used ([0141]), which is considered to meet the claim. Alternatively Maruyama teaches that the plating may include metals or alloys selected from a list including both of Al and Fe ([0141]). The combination of the elements known for the same purpose of plating the steel for welding would have been prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 3, Maruyama does not teach an example including every single material as claimed. However, Maruyama teaches Example steel which are useful in the invention (See [0166]-[0167] and Table 1). For example, Maruyama teaches steel A, which matches the limitation of the claim (Table 1). It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled Artisan to have selected a steel sheet which matches the claim limitations because Maruyama teaches the same utility of overlapping steels.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the coatings which are conceived in the examples of Maruyama are Zn-based coatings and that the disclosure would not have sufficiently guided the skilled artisan to have created a welded material having aluminum based coatings (remarks, p.8). This argument is considered but is not persuasive. The examiner previously stated that the prior art Maruyama teaches a plating at claim 6, and that the plating may be aluminum ([0140]-[0141]). The plating of Al would have been an obvious variant of the steel materials of Maruyama, where Maruyama clearly teaches that Al is a suitable plating material. It is acknowledged that the Maruyama examples do not envision a Al material, and use a more common Zn plate. However a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). In this case the difference of the plating is not considered to add patentable weight where the prior art teaches that the plating may be different.
Applicant further argues that Maruyama does not teach or suggest the relational expression 3 and 4. Applicant argues that the Mn and Cr content may be controlled, in part, based on the Ni content in the instant invention. This argument is considered but is also not persuasive. Maruyama at [0109]-[0115] was cited as describing the Cr content of Maruyama. Here, Maryama discusses in some detail that the Cr is tied in with Ni and Mo to alter microstructure as desired. Thus the skilled artisan would not have been merely stuck repeating examples of Maruyama, but would have adjusted the Cr content, and thus the values of relational expressions based on the Cr content, as needed. What is claimed would have flowed naturally from following the teachings of Maruyama.
When all of the evidence is considered as a whole, the evidence of obviousness outweighs evidence of patentability.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights