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
Claim 1 is amended in view of applicant’s response filed 6/10/2026. Claims 6-17 are canceled. New claims 18-19 are added. Therefore, claims 1-5 and 18-19 are currently under examination.
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) 1-5 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al. US 2015/0043962(Miyazaki).
Miyazaki teaches a tailored blank for hot stamping includes a welded portion formed by butt-welding(abstract) of two pieces of Al coated steel blanks, wherein the Al coat layer has an adhesion amount of 20g/m2, 40g/m2 or 80g/m2[0138]. The butt-welding of Miyazaki may be performed by laser welding while a filler wire is being supplied[0051, 0090,0153]. Additionally, the base steel blank of Miyazaki has a chemical composition comprising, in mass %, 0.15-0.25% of C, 0.1-0.35% of Si, 0.8-1.8% of Mn, 0.01-0.5% of Cr, 0.1 or less of B with remainder of Fe and inevitable impurities[0095]. Miyazaki does not teach forming ferrite. Miyazaki further teaches that the two pieces of Al coated steel blanks can have different thickness[0034] or the same thickness[0034-0035] and the same material [0094] (i.e. same strength).
Regarding claim 1, although instant claim does not explicitly recite that the joint portion comprises a filler wire, the instant specification (see page 4 bottom paragraph) discloses that “the joint portion is formed by melting the first coated steel sheet, the second coated steel sheet, and the filler wire together by applying the laser beam”. Therefore, the filler wire containing welded portion as taught by Miyazaki reads on the claimed joint portion as recited in the instant claim.
Miyazaki further teaches that the welded portion has a chemical composition comprising 1.5 mass% or less of Al[0070], which significantly overlaps the claimed Al amount in the joint portion. The filler wire used in the welded portion as taught by Miyazaki comprises 0.45% C and 1.5% Mn[0156]. Since the base steel planks of Miyazaki comprises 0.15-0.25% C and 0.8-1.8% Mn, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the final welded portion in the Al coated steel blank as taught by Miyazaki would have had C and Mn amounts that significantly overlap the claimed joint portion C and Mn amounts. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. The selection of claimed Al, C and Mn amounts from the Al, C and Mn amounts in the welded portion of Miyazaki would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the Al, C and Mn amounts in the welded portion of Miyazaki have the same utilities.
Additionally, Miyazaki teaches that the two pieces of Al coated steel blanks can have different thicknesses[0034] and/or different strength[0094], which read on the claimed amended feature “wherein the first coated steel sheet and the second coated steel sheet differ from one another in at least one of strength or thickness”
Lastly, Miyazaki further teaches that the two pieces of Al coated steel blanks can be made of the same material [0094] (i.e. same strength) with different thicknesses [0034-0035], and the tensile strength of the Al-plated steel sheets are preferably in a range of 270MPa to 590MPa[0096]. Sample No. 1 of Table 1 of Miyazaki shows that the fist Al-plated steel sheet has a thickness of 1.8mm and the second Al-plated steel sheet has a thickness of 1.6mm. Based on the Al-plated steel sheet tensile strength discussed above, the Examiner concludes that the difference between multiplication of the strength, when the same materials are used, and thickness of the first coated steel sheet of Miyazaki, for example 1.8mm as shown in Sample No. 1 of Table 1 and the multiplication of the strength and thickness of the second coated steel sheet of Miyazaki, for example 1.8mm as shown in Sample No. 1 of Table 1 would be in the range of [270*(1.8-1.2) – 590*(1.8-1.2)] MPA x mm = 24-118MPA x mm, which reads on the claimed “when a different between a value from multiplication of a first strength and a first thickness of the first coated steel sheet and a value from multiplication of a second strength and a second thickness of second coated steel sheet is less than or equal to 500MPA x mm”.
As discussed above, the welded portion(i.e. joint portion) of Miyazaki contains C and Mn in amounts that significantly overlap the claimed amounts of 0.25 wt% to 0.4 wt% C and 1.5 wt% to 2.5 wt% Mn. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. The selection of claimed Al, C and Mn amounts from the Al, C and Mn amounts in the welded portion of Miyazaki would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the Al, C and Mn amounts in the welded portion of Miyazaki have the same utilities.
Regarding claim 2, the heating conditions and cooling conditions as claimed are directed to process limitations in a product claim and do not patentably distinguish the claimed Al coated blank from the Al coated steel blank of Miyazaki. Miyazaki additionally teaches the improved average hardness[0115].
Regarding claim 3, Miyazaki further teaches that the welded material fully becomes martensite[0077].
Regarding claim 4, Miyazaki further teaches that the base steel additionally comprises Nb, Ti or Mo[0095].
Regarding claim 5, Miyazaki further teaches that the aluminum plating layer can be formed by hot dip coating [0099]. Miyazaki further teaches that the Al coating layer comprises 3-15mass% of Si[0099], which implies that the Al in the Al coating layer is 85-97%, meeting the limitation of claimed surface coating layer. Additionally, the claimed alloy layer between the and forming an alloy layer between the Al coating layer and the base steel blank would have inherent been present in the Al plated bank which similar Al Fe and AlFeSi intermetallic compounds.
Regarding claim 18, Miyazaki further teaches that the two pieces of Al coated steel blanks can be made of the have different strengths[0096] with the same thickness [0034-0035]. Sample No. 101, 113,118-120 on Table 3 of Miyazaki uses a first Al-plated steel sheet having a tensile strength of 1470 MPa and a second Al-plated steel sheet having a tensile strength of 590MPa, and the both steel sheets have the same thickness of 1.0mm. Therefore, the difference between multiplication of the strength and thickness of the first coated steel sheet of Miyazaki and the multiplication of the strength and thickness of the second coated steel sheet of Miyazaki is calculated to be [1470*1.0- 590*1.0] MPA x mm = 880MPA x mm, which reads on the claimed “when a different between a value from multiplication of a first strength and a first thickness of the first coated steel sheet and a value from multiplication of a second strength and a second thickness of second coated steel sheet is greater than 550MPA x 11 and less than or equal to 1000MPA x mm”.
As discussed above, the welded portion(i.e. joint portion) of Miyazaki contains C and Mn in amounts that significantly overlap the claimed amounts of 0.2 wt% to 0.3 wt% C and 1.0 wt% to 2.0 wt% Mn as recited in claim 18. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. The selection of claimed Al, C and Mn amounts from the Al, C and Mn amounts in the welded portion of Miyazaki would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the Al, C and Mn amounts in the welded portion of Miyazaki have the same utilities.
Regarding claim 19, Miyazaki further teaches that the two pieces of Al coated steel blanks can be made of the have different strengths[0096] with the same thickness [0034-0035]. Sample No. 14 on Table 1 of Miyazaki uses a first Al-plated steel sheet having a tensile strength of 1470 MPa and a second Al-plated steel sheet having a tensile strength of 590MPa[0137], and the both steel sheets have the same thickness of 1.8mm. Therefore, the difference between multiplication of the strength and thickness of the first coated steel sheet of Miyazaki and the multiplication of the strength and thickness of the second coated steel sheet of Miyazaki is calculated to be [1470*1.8- 590*1.8] MPA x mm = 1584MPA x mm, which reads on the claimed “when a different between a value from multiplication of a first strength and a first thickness of the first coated steel sheet and a value from multiplication of a second strength and a second thickness of second coated steel sheet is greater than 1000MPA x mm”.
As discussed above, the welded portion(i.e. joint portion) of Miyazaki contains C and Mn in amounts that significantly overlap the claimed amounts of 0.1 wt% to 0.25 wt% C and 0.8 wt% to 1.5 wt% Mn as recited in claim 19. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. The selection of claimed Al, C and Mn amounts from the Al, C and Mn amounts in the welded portion of Miyazaki would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the Al, C and Mn amounts in the welded portion of Miyazaki have the same utilities.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026 with respect to the amended feature in claim 1 and new claims 18-19 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the same reasons set forth in the corresponding rejections for amended feature in claim 1 and new claims 18-19 in section 4 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE 102017120051 A1 teaches a laser welding apparatus using a filler wire comprising 0.1-0.4wt% of C and 1.0-2.5wt% Mn, which reliably ensures a martensitic microstructure during press hardening([0025], claim 8)
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 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
Prosecution Insights