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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/14/2026 has been entered.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 16, 23-26, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/162556, as cited in the IDS dated 3/14/2025, wherein Yokoyama et al. (US 2022/0090248), as cited in the IDS dated 3/14/2025, hereinafter “Yokoyama,” is used and cited herein as an English language equivalent, in view of Hironaka et al. (JP 2008-231493), hereinafter “Hironaka,” wherein an English machine translation is used and cited herein.
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 29, Yokoyama teaches a galvanized steel sheet comprising a base steel sheet and a galvanized layer on a surface of the base steel sheet, wherein the base steel sheet has a chemical composition comprising, in mass%, C: 0.050-0.350%, Si: 0.10-2.50%, Mn: 1.00-3.50%, P: 0.050% or less, S: 0.0100% or less, Al: 0.001-1.500%, N: 0.100% or less, Ti: 0-0.200%, Nb: 0-0.100%, V: 0-1.00%, B: 0-0.0100%, Cu: 0-1.00%, Cr: 0-2.00%, Ni: 0-1.005, Mo: 0-1.00%, Sb: 0-1.00%, Sn: 0-1.00%, W: 0-1.00%, Mg: 0-0.0100%, Co: 0-1.00%, Zr: 0-0.0100%, Ca: 0-0.0100%, Ce: 0-0.0100%, Hf: 0-0.0100%, Bi: 0-0.0100%, REM: 0-0.0100%, and a balance of Fe and impurities ([0028]-[0057]), which satisfies or overlaps with the instantly claimed chemical composition ranges and Ceq. Yokoyama further teaches wherein the base steel sheet has a microstructure containing, by area%, ferrite: 0-50%, tempered martensite: 5% or more, retained austenite: 0-30%, and fresh martensite: 0-10% ([0058]-[0062]), which satisfies or overlaps with the instantly claimed chemical composition ranges. Additionally, Yokoyama teaches wherein the base steel sheet has a tensile strength of 980 MPa or more ([0200]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Yokoyama does not explicitly teach that the base steel sheet has a microstructure wherein an area ratio of bainitic ferrite is 5.0-40.0%, SBF + STM + 2 x SMA: 65.0% or more, SMA1/SMA: 0.03 or less, and SMA2/SMA: 0.20 or more, as required by claim 1, SMA3/SMA is 0.05 or more, as required by claim 3, and SMA1/SMA: 0.02 or less, as required by claim 29. However, Yokoyama teaches a steel sheet having an overlapping chemical composition ([0028]-[0057]), and further teaches a method of production of its steel sheet comprising a hot rolling process, a cold rolling process, heating the steel sheet to a temperature of Ac1 + 30⁰C or more and 950⁰C or less and holding at this temperature for 1-1000 seconds, a first cooling to a first cooling stop temperature of 300-600⁰C and holding for 80-500 seconds, a coating process in which the cold-rolled steel sheet is subjected to hot dip galvanizing, wherein the first cooling stop temperature is within +/- 20⁰C of the coating bath temperature, for example, the coating math temperature may be 440-460⁰C, a second cooling to a second cooling stop temperature of Ms-50⁰C or less, reheating to 200-420⁰C and holding for 5-500 seconds ([0069]-[0080], [0186], Table 2). Note that this process is substantially similar to the process described in paragraph [0023] of the instant specification. Thus, as Yokoyama teaches a steel sheet with an overlapping composition and substantially similar process of making, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the steel sheet of Yokoyama to have wherein an area ratio of bainitic ferrite is 5.0-40.0%, SBF + STM + 2 x SMA: 65.0% or more, SMA1/SMA: 0.03 or less, and SMA2/SMA: 0.20 or more, as required by claim 1, SMA3/SMA is 0.05 or more, as required by claim 3, and SMA1/SMA: 0.02 or less, as required by claim 29. In the case where “the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” See MPEP §2112.01.
Yokoyama is silent as to the galvanized steel further comprising a metal coating or plating layer at least on one side between the base steel sheet and the galvanized layer. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hironaka teaches that subjecting a steel sheet to an Fe-based electroplating treatment before being subjected to a galvanizing treatment suppresses the occurrence of cracks in a welded portion of the steel sheet, even when spot welding is performed under conditions of a large current that would cause expulsion (Abstract, [0015], [0017]). Note that Yokoyama desires weldability ([0003], [0126]-[0129]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to subject the steel sheet of Yokoyama to an Fe-based electroplating treatment before being subjected to a galvanizing treatment in order to suppress the occurrence of cracks when the steel sheet is welded, as taught by Hironaka. Doing so would yield an Fe-based plating player at least on one side between the base steel sheet and the galvanized layer.
With respect to claims 4 and 16, Yokoyama modified by Hironaka teaches wherein the galvanized layer is a hot-dip galvanized layer or hot-dip galvannealed layer (Yokoyama: Abstract, [0153]).
Regarding claims 23-26, Yokoyama modified by Hironaka teaches wherein the plating layer is an Fe-based plating layer (Hironaka: [0017]).
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 8/14/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application No. 18/727,874 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
The terminal disclaimer filed on 8/14/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application No. 18/579,575 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the SMA1/SMA is strongly affected by manufacturing conditions, namely the holding time in the temperature range of 300-550⁰C. Applicant argues that in the examples of the instant specification, examples having SMA1/SMA values of 0.03 or less are associated with holding times of 70 seconds or less, while the prior art reference Yokoyama teaches a soaking time of 80-500 seconds. In response, Examiner notes that Comparative Examples 26 and 28 had holding times of 180s and 750s, respectively, and yielded SMA1/SMA under 0.03. Furthermore, Tables 2 and 3 have numerous examples with holding times of 70s or less and yet, yielded SMA1/SMA in excess of 0.03. Thus, it would not appear that the holding time determines the SMA1/SMA. Yokoyama teaches a steel sheet with an overlapping composition and substantially similar process of making, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the steel sheet of Yokoyama to have a SMA1/SMA that is the same or overlapping with the instantly claimed range. In the case where “the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” See MPEP §2112.01.
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 ANTHONY M LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0483. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1177. 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.
/ANTHONY M LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights