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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The claim objection is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 1/21/2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Siebentritt (US 2023/0031338) in view of Sibentritt (US 2022/0213573), Arioka (JP 2002-317257), Yoshitomi (US 2020/0377978) and Maeda (US 2021/0404496), Yoshitomi (US 2021/0010115) in view of Arioka and Maeda, and Hirashima (US 2020/0032364) in view of Arioka and Maeda have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Maki (JP 2004-124207) and Yoshioka et al. (US 2022/056549).
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 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).
Regarding claims 1 and 24, Maki discloses a steel sheet which is Zn plated (¶ 6). The steel sheet of Maki has the following composition in wt%, as compared to the claimed composition:
Claim 1
Maki, ¶¶ 11-14
C
0.21%-0.30%
0.1%-0.8%
Si
≤0.5%
0.05%-1%
Mn
1.5%-1.6%
0.5%-3%
P
≤0.010%
≤0.1% (see claim 4)
S
≤0.010%
≤0.1% (see claim 4)
Al
≤0.10%
≤0.2% (see claim 4)
N
≤0.006%
≤0.1% (see claim 4)
Fe
Balance
Balance
Optional
Ti, Nb, V, Zr
≤0.10%
≥0.2%
Mo, Cu, Ni
≤0.5%
≥0.2%
B
≤0.0050%
≥0.001%
Sb
≤0.10%
≤0.1% (see claim 4)
Sn
≤0.10%
≤0.1% (see claim 4)
The prior art composition overlaps the claimed composition, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Maki also teaches the steel sheet microstructure is mainly composed of martensite, and has a tensile strength of at least 1000 MPa (¶ 11). This is understood to mean the microstructure is at least 50% martensite. The prior art ranges overlap the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Maki 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 Maki 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).
Maki 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 Maki below 0.20 mass ppm, as taught by Yoshitomi, to prevent weld cracks.
Modified Maki 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).
Claims 1, 3-4, 8 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshiaki et al. (US 2022/0056549) 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, Yoshiaki discloses a steel sheet which is galvanized or galvannealed (¶ 70). The steel sheet of Yoshiaki has the following composition in wt%, as compared to the claimed composition:
Claim 1
Yoshiaki, ¶¶ 24-54
C
0.21%-0.30%
0.13%-0.40%, pref. 0.19%-0.34%
Si
≤0.5%
≤1.5%, pref. ≤0.7%
Mn
1.5%-1.6%
≤1.7%
P
≤0.010%
≤0.010%
S
≤0.010%
≤0.0020%
Al
≤0.10%
≤0.2%
N
≤0.006%
≤0.0055%
Fe
Balance
Balance
Optional
Ti, Nb, V, Zr
≤0.10%
Nb: 0.002%-0.035%; Ti: 0.002%-0.10%; V: 0.003%-0.45%; Zr: 0.005%-0.20%
Mo, Cu, Ni
≤0.5%
Mo: 0.01%-0.3%; Cu: 0.01%-1%; Ni: 0.01%-1%
B
≤0.0050%
0.0002%-0.0035%
Sb
≤0.10%
0.002%-0.1%
Sn
≤0.10%
0.002%-0.1%
The prior art composition overlaps the claimed composition, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Yoshiaki also teaches the steel sheet microstructure contains at least 95% martensite and bainite (¶ 20), and has a tensile strength of at least 1,320 MPa (¶ 11). The prior art ranges overlap the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Yoshiaki 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 Yoshiaki 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).
Yoshiaki 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 Maki below 0.20 mass ppm, as taught by Yoshitomi, to prevent weld cracks.
Modified Yoshiaki 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
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