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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 2/27/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are allowable. Claims 13-17, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between inventions I and II, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 3/18/2025, is hereby withdrawn and claims 13-17 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification contains language similar to language in claims 13-17 which are subject to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections (see below). Any amendments to the claims to overcome these rejections should also be made for the similar language in the specification. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 recites “A manufacturing method of a plated steel sheet”. This should be “A manufacturing method of [[a]]the plated steel sheet of claim 1”.
Claim 13 recites: “hot dip galvanizing a base steel sheet, including by weight: Mg: 4 to 6%, Al: 8.2 to 14.2%, with a balance Zn…” The composition recited is clearly directed to the galvanizing coating, but the claim wording suggests this is the composition of the base steel sheet.
Claim 13 recites “lnt”. This should be “ln(t)”.
Claim 13 recites “a thickness of the steel sheet (mm)”. This should be “a thickness of the steel sheet in mm”.
Claim 13 contains two sentences and two periods. See MPEP 608.01(m).
Claim 13 recites “from a solidification initiation temperature”. This should be “from the solidification temperature”.
Claim 13 recites “damper opening rate De of an edge portion to a damper opening rate Dc of a center portion”. This should be “damper opening rate of an edge portion (De) to a damper opening rate of a center portion (Dc)”.
Claim 14 twice recites “changing the ratio (De/De)”, which should be (De/Dc). Claim 14 also twice recites “damper opening rate (De) of the center portion” which should be “damper opening rate (Dc) of the center portion”.
Claim 14 contains multiple instances of redundant language because it repeatedly explains what De and Dc stand for, despite the fact they have already been defined in claim 13.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites: “…higher than a solidification initiation temperature in an equilibrium state”. Claim 13 also recites “a solidification end temperature”. These limitations are indefinite because the claim fails to set forth what is a solidification initiation temperature, i.e., whether this belongs to the plating bath or the steel sheet. For purposes of examination, the former is presumed. Regarding the solidification end temperature, and the same issues are raised, and the same presumption for examination purposes is adopted.
Claim 13 recites: “wherein in the cooling operation, cooling is performed so that the following relations 1-1 and 1-2 are satisfied…” Claim 13 formerly describes the cooling operation as taking place between the solidification initiation temperature and a solidification end temperature. However, relations 1-1 and 1-2 set cooling rates from (1) a solidification initiation temperature to 375°C and (2) 375°C and 340°C. Given zinc has a melting point of about 420°C, a solidification end temperature of the claimed bath composition is likely to be in the vicinity of 420°C. Thus, it is apparent that the temperature range given by the claim for the cooling operation extends well beyond the temperature range of the claimed cooling step which only includes a solidification initiation temperature to a solidification end temperature. For purposes of examination, it is presumed the claimed “cooling…from the solidification initiation temperature to a solidification end temperature” is merely one part of the claimed cooling operation.
Claim 14 recites: “…depending on a temperature section…” It is unknown what this is. The phrase does not appear to affect the other claim language in any way. For purposes of examination, it is ignored.
Claim 15 recites: “…further comprising an operation of, after the cooling operation: improving a surface and shape of the base steel sheet”. This limitation is indefinite. Prior to the cooling operation of claim 13, the base steel sheet undergoes hot-dip galvanizing. Thus, the claimed rolling operation affects and surface and shape of the hot-dip galvanized steel sheet, not the base steel sheet. For purposes of examination, this is presumed to be the case.
Claims 15-17 recite “a roll reduction of…tons”. It is unclear what this means. Roll reduction is typically given as a percentage, signifying the percent decrease in thickness a material undergoes after rolling. If, instead of measuring a rolling operation by terms of percentage but by the amount of force applied, then more appropriate terminology should be used. Moreover, the units given should be in terms of force, not in terms of mass. For purposes of examination, it is presumed the rolling is applied with a force given in tons·force.
Claims 15-17 recite the unit “tons”. However, the claim fails to specify whether this is a short ton (i.e., US ton), a long ton (i.e., UK ton), or a metric ton, rendering the claims indefinite. For purposes of examination, it is assumed to be a metric ton.
Dependent claims not addressed are indefinite by virtue of dependence from an indefinite claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are allowed.
Claims 13-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed steel sheet having a Zn-Mg-Al-based plating layer having the claimed microstructure.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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