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 .
Claim Status
Applicants’ February 16, 2026 response to the November 28, 2025 Non-Final Rejection is acknowledged. Claims 1-4, 13 and 15 are pending, claim 1 is independent. Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicants’ arguments to the relevance of the October 14, 2025 NPL IDS documents is appreciated (Pg.8); however, in order to be properly considered, applicant is invited to submit a new IDS with this information and NPL documents included
Examiner’s Note
Regarding “iron-free mass fraction” this is definite in light of the specification (Pg. 3 [1]), “iron-free mass fraction of an alloy constituent in the protective coating, in the context of this application, is understood to mean the proportion of the total mass of this alloy constituent in the total mass of all elements in the protective coating except for iron”. Examiner notes the applicant assumes examiner meant “indefinite” when this note was previously made (Pg. 8). This is not correct. The examiner was indeed noting it was “definite” in light of the specification, and was putting the clarification on record (if it was “indefinite” a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection would have been made).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laurent et al. (US 6,296,805 B1), hereinafter Laurent, in view of Blumenau et al. (US 2017/0198152 A1), hereinafter Blumenau (both of record in the application).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 13, Laurent teaches a steel sheet (flat steel; specification Pg. 1 [2]) with an aluminum-based coating assuring a high-resistance to corrosion (Col. 1 Lns. 47-64 protective to corrosion) that allows for deep stamping as a hot-shaping process (Col. 2 Lns. 46-52; for hot forming) with a composition shown below in the Table (Col. 3 Lns. 38-43; Col. 1 Lns. 60-61) and the coating of aluminum has a considerable hardness of 600 HV100g or more (solidified; Col. 4 Lns. 46-51).
Table 1A (weight/mass%)
Instant claim 1
Instant claim 13
Laurent Col 3 Lns. 38-43; Col. 1 Lns. 60-61
C
0.4-0.45%
0.21
Si
0.02-1.2
0.25
Mn
0.5-2.6
1.14
Al
0.02-1.0
0.040
P
≤ 0.05
0.020
S
≤ 0.02
0.0038
N
≤ 0.02
0.0040
Sn
≤ 0.03
As
≤ 0.01
Ca
≤ 0.005
0.0050
Fe & unavoidable impurities
As well as
Remainder
One or more of
Cr
0.08-1.0
0.18
B
0.001-0.005
0.003
Mo
≤ 0.5
Ni
≤ 0.5
0.020
Cu
≤ 0.2
0.009
Nb
0.02-0.08
Ti
0.01-0.08
0.032
V
≤ 0.1
Regarding Mo, Sn, As, Nb and V, the steel composition of Laurent is considered optionally limited to those elements listed above. No other elements are listed in the entirety of the Laurent document as being required in the steel composition. As such, Laurent teaches a composition optionally closed to the above elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to use the closed composition of Laurent with the compositional amounts cited above all taught by Laurent
Laurent does not specifically teach the composition of the aluminum-based protective coating claimed in claims 1-4 of applicant.
Blumenau is in the similar field of endeavor of aluminum coatings for steel products including sheets ([0004]) and teaches the aluminum alloy of the metallic anticorrosion coating comprises Al and unavoidable impurities and 0.5-5 wt% Fe, and optionally 0.2-2 wt% Mn, 0.2-7 wt% Mg, Ti: 0.05-0.4 wt%, Zr: 0.05-0.4 wt% ([0008]) including examples closed to Mn, Mg, Si, Fe and a balance of A (Table 1). This calculates to an iron-free mass fraction overlapping applicants Si+ Mn+Mg, Mg, Mn and Si.
The aluminum composition of Blumenau is considered optionally limited to those elements listed above of Mn, Mg, Si, Fe and a remainder Al and impurities (above citations). Applicants’ specification acknowledges that their closed composition includes up to 0.2 wt% (Pg. 17 [1] ; Pg. 16 [3]). No other elements are listed in the entirety of the Blumenau document as being required in the aluminum plating composition (there are other optional elements, but they are also optionally 0%). As such, Blumenau teaches a composition optionally closed to the above elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to use the closed composition of Suzuki with the compositional amounts cited above all taught by Blumenau.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing day of the invention, to modify Laurent to incorporate the coating composition of Blumenau. The motivation for doing so would have been simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 IB). The prior art contained a steel sheet with an aluminum alloy that differed from the claimed coated steel only by the substitution of the contents of the aluminum coating (above citations; finding 1). The coating and the claimed layered structure were known in the art (above citations; finding 2). One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the coating of Blumenau with the aluminum coating of Laurent and the results of the substation would have been predictable. Laurent looked to the aluminum -based coating to ensure a high-resistance to corrosion (Abstract) and Blumenau teaches their amounts Si, Mn and Mg improve the anticorrosion properties of the coating ) ([0020]; [0028]; [[0029]) (finding 3).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Regarding claim 15, Laurent in view of Blumenau teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above. Laurent does not teach a surface of the aluminum-based protective coating includes an oxide layer between the aluminum-based protective coating and the steel substrate.
Blumenau is in the similar field of endeavor of aluminum coatings for steel products including sheets ([0004]) and teaches preoxidation of the stee prior to hot dip aluminization ([0051]; this is an oxide layer between the aluminum and the steel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing day of the invention, to modify Laurent to incorporate the oxide layer of Blumenau. The motivation for doing so would have been simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 IB). The prior art contained a steel sheet with an aluminum alloy that differed from the claimed coated steel only by the substitution of the contents of the oxide layer (above citations; finding 1). The coating and the claimed layered structure were known in the art (above citations; finding 2). One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the coating of Blumenau with the oxide layer of Laurent and the results of the substation would have been predictable. Laurent looked to the aluminum -based coating to ensure extensive shaping possibilities (Co.. 1 Lns. 37-40) and Blumenau teaches preoxidation improves the steel product formability (shaping) (finding 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The lack of an example of Blumenau to meet claim limitations is unpersuasive. Per MPEP 2123 II, mere disclosed examples do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure, because mere disclosure does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage the claimed composition range. Also, according to MPEP 2123 I, a reference maybe relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. In the ranges taught by the prior art, there are values that meet the claimed expressions (see above discussion of the rejection). The composition of the prior art overlaps applicants claimed proportions, which establishes a prima facie case of obviousness; where one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions satisfying the presently claimed relational and compositional requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). Further, Blumenau not teaching the alleged benefits is not persuasive, as “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant” (MPEP 2144 IV)
For these reasons, and for those reasons as advanced in the rejections above, the present claims are not found to distinguish over the prior art and this action is made FINAL.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KATHERINE CHRISTY whose telephone number is (303)297-4363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-4pm MT.
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.
/KATHERINE A CHRISTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784