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 Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites “the outer surface of the outer plating layer of the workpiece is sputtered to form a layer of nano organic protective film on the outer surface of the outer plating layer”. However, neither claim 13 nor the instant specification clearly provide the scope of “nano organic protective film”. It is not clear the term “nano” is referring to the thickness or the size of the film, or if “nano” is directed to an ingredient of the organic protective film. Therefore, the examiner concludes that the instant claim 13 is vague and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 14-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levey US 2014/0110266 A1(Levey)
Levey teaches a method for producing a tin plated steel substrate comprising the following steps:
Providing a steel substrate[0011];
Contacting a steel substrate with a pre-plating composition that coats the steel substrate[0012];
Tin plating the pre-plated steel substrate[0012];
Rising the tin plated substrate with water and a dilute fluxing agent to inhibit formation of tin oxide[0036]; and
Subjecting the cleaned tin plated steel substrate to reflow treatment at 235-300°C(i.e. above tin melting point of 232°C)[0037].
Regarding claims 1, 15-18 and 20, the steel substrate as taught by Levey reads on the claimed workpiece providing a substrate. The pre-plating layer formed in the pre-plating step of Levey reads on the claimed intermediate plating layer. The rinsing of the tin plated substrate with water and a dilute fluxing agent as taught by Levey reads on the claimed cleaning step. The tin plating layer formed in the tin plating step of Levey reads on the claimed outer plating layer. Additionally, since the reflow treatment as taught by Levey takes place at a temperature higher than the melting point of tin, the examiner concludes that the reflow treatment as taught by Levey reads on the claimed reflow melting step. The claimed reflow melting device would have inherently been present in the reflow treatment of Levey.
Regarding claim 4, the cleaning step as taught by Levey uses flux as claimed and is capable of removing oxide and dirt as claim.
Regarding claim 5, since the cleaning step as taught by Levey uses water in a rinsing step, the examiner concludes that the water in the rinsing step of Levey would have inherently increased a moisture content at the outer surface of the tin plating layer as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, Levey further teaches that the reflow treatment typically uses induction heating[0037], which implies the presence of an inductance melting furnace as claimed.
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, 4-5, 7 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH7-300695(JPH695), and further in view of Levey US 2014/0110266 A1(Levey).
JPH695 teaches a method for producing a surface treated steel sheet comprising the following steps:
Nickel plating the outer surface of the steel sheet(abstract);
Tin plating the nickel plated steel sheet(abstract); and
Reflow melting the tin plating layer[0013].
Regarding claims 1 and 15-20, the steel sheet as taught by JPH695 reads on the claimed workpiece providing a substrate. The nickel plating layer formed in the nickel plating step of JPH695 reads on the claimed intermediate plating layer. The tin plating layer formed in the tin plating step of JPH695 reads on the claimed outer plating layer. The reflow melting step of JPH695 would have inherently included a reflow melting device as claimed.
However, JPH695 does not explicitly teach the claimed cleaning step to remove oxides and dirt on the surface of the outer plating layer(i.e. tin plating layer).
The teaching of Levey are discussed in section 6 above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the tin plating layer rinsing step with water and flux prior to the reflow treatment as taught by Levey into the process of JPH695 in order to inhibit formation of tin oxides and hydroxides as taught by Levey[0036].
Regarding claims 2 and 7, JPH695 further teaches a shot blasting polishing step after the tin plating layer is subjected to the reflow melting treatment[0019], which reads on the claimed physical polishing step.
Regarding claim 4, the cleaning step as taught by JPH695 in view of Levey uses flux as claimed and is capable of removing oxide and dirt as claim.
Regarding claim 5, since the cleaning step as taught by JPH695 in view of Levey uses water in a rinsing step, the examiner concludes that the water in the rinsing step of JPH695 in view of Levey would have had an increased moisture content at the outer surface of the tin plating layer as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, since JPH695 does not disclose any specific type of furnace used in the reflow melting step, and Levey teaches that the tin deposit is typically reflowed by induction heating[0037], one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have incorporated the induction heating (i.e. presence of inductance melting furnace) into the reflow melting step of JPH695 with expected success of reflow melting the tin plated as taught by Levey.
Claim(s) 3 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH695 in view of Levey, and further in view of Sinsel et al. US 5,928,487(Sinsel).
The teachings of JPH695 in view of Levey are discussed in section 8 above. However, JPH695 in view of Levey do not explicitly teach the claimed formation of a protective film on the outer surface of the outer plating layer.
Sinsel teaches subjecting a tin plating layer on the surface of a steel substate to a reflow melting treatment using an induction or infrared heaters(col. 9 lines 1-8), followed by a chemical treatment to provide treated surface with a passivation layer in order to protect the treated surface for storage and for delays in further processing(col. 9 lines 12-16). The passivated surface as taught by Sinsel is further protected with an organic lubricant to further protect the coated steel substrate(col. 9 lines 18-21).
Regarding claims 3 and 10-11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the chemical treatment as taught by Sinsel in to the process of JPH695 in view of Levey in order to provide a passivation layer to protect the tin plated steel substrate for storage and for delays in further processing as taught by Sinsel.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH695 in view of Levey, and further in view of JP 2007152545A(JP545)
The teachings of JPH695 in view of Levey are discussed in section 8 above. However, JPH695 in view of Levey do not explicitly teach the claimed physical polishing device including a sandblasting polishing device, a cloth wheel polishing device or a plasma polishing device as recited in claim 8. JPH695 in view of Levey do not explicitly teach the claimed physicochemical mixed polishing treatment as recited in claim 9.
JP545 teaches a process for grinding (polishing) a surface plate (abstract), wherein the surface plate is a tin plate[0014]. The tin plate of JP545 is subjected to a plasma polishing treatment[0017-0019]. JP545 further teaches that diamond particles used in the plasma polishing treatment are chemically bonded to the tin surface[0030], which indicates that the plasma polishing as taught by JP545 is a physicochemical mixed polishing treatment.
Regarding claims 8-9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the plasma polishing treatment as taught by JP545 into the polishing step of JPH695 in view of Levey in order improve adhesion and oxide removal as taught by JP545[0028, 0030, 0032].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH695 in view of Levey and in view of Sinsel, and further in view of JP4254112 B2 (JP112).
The teachings of JPH695 in view of Levey and Sinsel are discussed in section 9 above. Sinsel additionally teaches that the passivated surface is coated with an organic lubricant to further protect the coated steel substrate(col. 9 lines 18-21).
Regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the additional organic lubricant coating as taught by Sinsel in to the process of JPH695 in view of Levey in order to further protect the coated steel substrate as taught by Sinsel.
However, JPH695 in view of Levey and Sinsel do not explicitly teach that the lubricant coating is a layer of lubricating oil protective film as claimed.
JP112 teaches a process for treating a tin plated steel sheet (abstract) wherein the tin plated steel sheet is further coated with a resin layer with sufficient lubrication performance[0026]. JP112 further teaches that oil can be added to further improve lubricity[0026].
Regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the oil into the lubricant coating composition used in the process of JPH695 in view of Levey and Sinsel in order to further improve the lubricity as taught by JP112.
Claim(s) 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levey, and further in view of JPH695.
The teachings of Levey and JPH695 are discussed in sections 6 and 8 above.
Regarding claims 2 and 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the shot blasting polishing step as taught by JPH695 into process of Levey in order to provide a dull finish to the tin plated steel sheet as taught by JPH695[0019].
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levey in view of JPH695, and further in view of JP545.
The teachings of Levey in view of JPH695 are discussed in section 12 above. However, Levey in view of JPH695 do not explicitly teach the claimed physical polishing device including a sandblasting polishing device, a cloth wheel polishing device or a plasma polishing device as recited in claim 8. Levey in view of JPH695 also do not explicitly teach the claimed physicochemical mixed polishing treatment as recited in claim 9.
JP545 teaches a process for grinding (polishing) a surface plate (abstract), wherein the surface plate is a tin plate[0014]. The tin plate of JP545 is subjected to a plasma polishing treatment[0017-0019]. JP545 further teaches that diamond particles used in the plasma polishing treatment are chemically bonded to the tin surface[0030], which indicates that the plasma polishing as taught by JP545 is a physicochemical mixed polishing treatment.
Regarding claims 8-9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the plasma polishing treatment as taught by JP545 into the polishing step of Levey in view of JPH695 in order improve adhesion and oxide removal as taught by JP545[0028, 0030, 0032].
Claim(s) 3 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levey in view of JPH695, and further in view of Sinsel et al. US 5,928,487(Sinsel).
The teachings of Levey in view of JPH695 are discussed in section 12 above. However, Levey in view of JPH695 do not explicitly teach the claimed formation of a protective film on the outer surface of the outer plating layer.
Sinsel teaches subjecting a tin plating layer on the surface of a steel substate to a reflow melting treatment using an induction or infrared heaters(col. 9 lines 1-8), followed by a chemical treatment to provide treated surface with a passivation layer in order to protect the treated surface for storage and for delays in further processing(col. 9 lines 12-16). The passivated surface as taught by Sinsel is further protected with an organic lubricant to further protect the coated steel substrate(col. 9 lines 18-21).
Regarding claims 3 and 10-11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the chemical treatment as taught by Sinsel in to the process of Levey in view of JPH695 in order to provide a passivation layer to protect the tin plated steel substrate for storage and for delays in further processing as taught by Sinsel.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levey in view of JPH695 and Sinsel, and further in view of JP4254112B2 (JP112).
The teachings of Levey in view of JPH695 and Sinsel are discussed in section 14 above. Sinsel additionally teaches that the passivated surface is coated with an organic lubricant to further protect the coated steel substrate(col. 9 lines 18-21).
Regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the additional organic lubricant coating as taught by Sinsel in to the process of Levey in view of JPH695 in order to further protect the coated steel substrate as taught by Sinsel.
However, Levey in view of JPH695 and Sinsel do not explicitly teach that the lubricant coating is a layer of lubricating oil protective film as claimed.
JP112 teaches a process for treating a tin plated steel sheet (abstract) wherein the tin plated steel sheet is further coated with a resin layer with sufficient lubrication performance[0026]. JP112 further teaches that oil can be added to further improve lubricity[0026].
Regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the oil into the lubricant coating composition used in the process of Levey in view of JPH695 and Sinsel in order to further improve the lubricity as taught by JP112.
Note: Claim 13 is free of art rejection. The closest prior art Levey and JPH695 are discussed in sections 6 and 8 above. However, neither Levey or JPH695, alone or in combination, teaches that the outer surface of the tin plating layer is sputtered to form a layer of nano organic protective film. Prior art search has not yield any reference teaching forming a nano organic film on a plated substrate
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art Levey and JPH695 are discussed in sections 6 and 8 above. However, neither Levey or JPH695, alone or in combination, teaches that the reflow melted tin plated steel substrate is polished by immersing in an optical polishing liquid to perform a chemical polishing treatment on the outer surface of the tin plating layer. Prior art search has not yielded any reference teaching a reflow melted plated substrate being chemically polished in an optical polishing liquid.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOIS L ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1248. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
LOIS ZHENG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/LOIS L ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733