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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futaba et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2020/0141019) in view of Toki et al. (JP H0999517) and Ghaziof et al. (“Electrodeposition of single gamma phased Zn–Ni alloy coatings from additive-free acidic bath”; Applied Surface Science; 2014; pages 635-642).
Regarding claim 1, Futaba discloses a method of manufacturing a zinc-nickel alloy electroplated steel sheet (abstract; paragraphs 6, 40, 44 – the zinc alloy includes one or more elements, i.e. Ni), comprising operations of:
temper rolling a base steel sheet to form a temper-rolled base steel sheet (paragraphs 52, 89, 100);
immersing the temper-rolled base steel sheet in a sulfuric acid bath including nickel sulfate hydrate and zinc sulfate hydrate to form a zinc-nickel plating layer on the base steel sheet (paragraph 89-90, 103, 106); and
polishing the zinc-nickel plating layer and processing a hairline pattern (paragraphs 92, 94, 110).
Futaba fails to teach wherein a surface roughness of the surface of the temper-
rolled base steel sheet is 0.7 to 1.0 µm on the basis of average roughness of a center line (Ra) and wherein the zinc-nickel plating layer formed on the base steel sheet is composed of a single gamma (Ni5Zn21) phase.
Toki discloses zinc alloy, i.e. Zn-Ni, plated steel sheets having a surface roughness in the range of 0.5 to 5µm in order to improve adhesion with the coating provided thereon (paragraphs 17-19).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form a temper-rolled base steel sheet of Futaba having a surface roughness in the range 0.7 to 1µm because as taught by Toki, this improves adhesion with the coating and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Futaba in view of Toki fails to teach wherein the zinc-nickel plating layer formed on the base steel sheet is composed of a single gamma (Ni5Zn21) phase.
Ghaziof teaches that Zn-Ni coatings with a single gamma phase comprising nickel at 10-14 wt.% show a five times better corrosion resistance than pure zinc and that coatings of less than 10% Ni are a mixture of different phases where Zn-Ni
coatings are mostly a mixture of intermetallic phases (abstract; page 635, col. 1, second paragraph under Introduction).
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to form the Zn-Ni coating of the modified Futaba as a single gamma phase because as taught by Ghaziof, this provides a coating with improved corrosion protection.
Regarding claim 6, according to applicant’s disclosure, the hardness of the zinc-nickel plating layer formed on the base steel sheet is determined by the amount of nickel in the alloy (paragraph 34). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to continue the electrolytic Zn-Ni alloy plating until a desired hardness is obtained.
Regarding claim 8, Futaba discloses a change in average roughness of a center line of the zinc-nickel plating layer after the polishing and the processing is -1.00 to -0.35 µm (paragraphs 19, 22, 25, 48, 73-74).
Regarding claim 9, Futaba further teaches wherein a change rate of a surface roughness of the zinc-nickel plating layer is determined according to the polishing, and a change rate of the surface roughness of the zinc-nickel plating layer is determined according to the processing (paragraphs 4, 19-21, 48-51, 73, 92, 94).
Regarding claim 10, Futaba teaches wherein a thickness of the Zn-Ni plating layer after the polishing and the processing is 0.2 to 0.75 of a thickness of the Zn-Ni plating layer before the polishing and the processing (paragraphs 83, 91, 100; tables 1A, 2A).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futaba et al. in view of Toki and Ghaziof, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 10-2001-0112747).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Futaba teaches all the features discussed above but fails to disclose wherein the temper rolling is performed using an electric discharge machining roll in a capacity (-) mode.
Kim discloses a method for electro-galvanizing a Zn-Ni alloy on a steel sheet comprising a temper rolling step performed using an electric discharge machining rolling in a processing mode in a capacity (-) in order to improve illumination pattern of the final plated material (page 2, paragraphs 1-4; page 3, paragraph 5 to page 4, paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to perform the temper rolling step of the modified Futaba using an electric discharge machining roll in a capacity (-) mode, as taught by Kim, in order to improve illumination pattern of the final plated material.
Regarding claim 3, a surface of the roll of Kim is coated with chrome (page 2, first paragraph under “Purpose of the Invention”).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses wherein the temper rolling is performed at an elongation of 0.3 to1.2% (page 3, paragraph 4 to page 4, second paragraph; page 5, paragraphs 1 and 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The applicant argues that Futaba fails to teach wherein a surface roughness of the surface of the temper-rolled base steel sheet is 0.7 to 1.0 µm on the basis of average roughness of a center line (Ra) and wherein the zinc-nickel plating layer formed on the base steel sheet is composed of a single gamma (Ni5Zn21) phase, as amended. Therefore, after further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection have been presented in view of Toki and Ghaziof.
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 ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights