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 .
Examiner’s Comment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims do not have explicit support in the specification, but is impliedly supported in view of [0060]-[0061] of the Specification as originally filed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 4/22/2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Maki (JP 2004-124207) in view of Arioka et al. (JP 2002-317257), Yoshitomi et al. (US 2020/0377978) and Maeda et al. (US 2021/0404496) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s arguments. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Yoshiaki et al. (US 2022/0056549) in view of Arioka, Yoshitomi, and Maeda have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments. The rejections have therefore been withdrawn.
However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Yokoyama et al. (US 2021/0230712).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. (US 2021/0230712) in view of Arioka et al. (JP 2002-317257), Yoshitomi et al. (US 2020/0377978) and Maeda et al. (US 2021/0404496).
Regarding claims 1 and 24, Yokoyama discloses a steel sheet which is Zn plated (¶ 1). Yokoyama does not state the steel sheet is pressed or stamped. The steel sheet of Yokoyama has the following composition in wt%, as compared to the claimed composition:
Claim 1
Yokoyama, ¶¶ 26-56
C
0.21%-0.30%
0.150%-0.500%
Si
≤0.5%
0.01%-2.50% (pref ≤1.00%, ¶ 114)
Mn
1.5%-1.6%
1.00%-5.00% (pref ≥1.50%, ¶ 116)
P
≤0.010%
≤0.100%
S
≤0.010%
≤0.0100%
Al
≤0.10%
0.001%-1.000% (pref ≤0.400%, ¶ 122)
N
≤0.006%
≤0.0100%
Fe
Balance
Balance
Optional
Nb, V, Zr
≤0.10%
Nb 0%-0.30%, V 0%-1.00%, Zr 0%-0.0100%
Mo, Cu, Ni
≤0.5%
Mo 0%-1.00%, Cu 0%-1.00%, Ni 0%-1.00%
B
≤0.0050%
0%-0.010%
Sb
≤0.10%
0%-0.50%
Sn
≤0.10%
0%-1.00%
The prior art composition overlaps the claimed composition, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Yokoyama also teaches the steel sheet microstructure contains at least 70% tempered martensite and at most 10% fresh martensite (¶¶ 60-61), and has a tensile strength of at least 1470 MPa (¶ 65). The prior art ranges overlap the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Yokoyama does not expressly teach a surface roughness of the galvanized steel sheet. Arioka teaches the surface roughness Ra of a galvanized steel sheet is 0.8 μm or less (¶ 48), which overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness as to Ra. See MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the steel sheet of Yokoyama according to the teachings of Arioka to have a surface roughness of 0.8 μm or less because Arioka teaches a low surface roughness on a galvanized steel sheet is preferable for alloying and increases slidability (¶ 48).
Yokoyama in view of Arioka does not expressly disclose an amount of diffusible hydrogen in the steel sheet. Yoshitomi teaches keeping the amount of diffusible hydrogen below 0.20 mass ppm in order to prevent cracking of a weld nugget during welding (¶ 63). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to keep the amount of diffusible hydrogen in the galvanized steel sheet of Modified Yokoyama below 0.20 mass ppm, as taught by Yoshitomi, to prevent weld cracks.
Modified Yokoyama does not teach or suggest the claimed D/√t value. Maeda discloses a galvanized steel sheet (see ¶ 92) which is resistance spot welded (¶ 72). Maeda teaches the diameter of the weld nuggets is within the range of 2×√t to 7×√t (¶¶ 73-74). This corresponds to a D//√t value of 2-7. It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have weld nuggets satisfying the claimed D/√t value because Maeda teaches nuggets within this range prevent crack formation (¶¶ 73-74).
Regarding claim 3, Arioka teaches the galvanized steel sheet is galvannealed (¶ 60) and results in an Fe content of 8%-15% in the plating layer (¶ 42).
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Arioka discloses a plating weight is 30-80 g/m2 (¶ 49).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yokoyama (US 2021/055999) discloses almost identical subject matter to Yokoyama ‘712.
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 XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights