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
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-3 in the reply filed on 23 January 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the prior art does not describe the Relational Expression 1 thru 4. This is not found persuasive because the prior art need not describe every relationship between the elements as present. In this case what is claimed is not a series of mathematical expressions, but a welded blank. The prior art need not disclose or recognize applicant’s Relational Expressions in order to disclose or makes obvious a welded blank falling in the ranges as claimed. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 23 January 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 27 June 2023. These drawings are accepted.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20150043962 A1 teaches a tailored blank for hot welding which includes Al-plating. US 5603853 A teaches prior art welded blanks.
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