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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 1/8/25 has been entered. Claims 1-6 are pending examination.
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 1-6 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 1, at line 8, recites the phrase “contitutng the hot-dip alloy -plated layer”. The scope of the claim is indefinite depending on the intention of the typographical error of “contitutng” (is the intention “contained in the hot hot-dip alloy -plated layer”, “constituting the hot-dip alloy -plated layer” , “continuing the hot-dip alloy -plated layer” or something different entirely?). For purposes of examination “contitutng the hot-dip alloy -plated layer” will be interpreted as at least inclusive of any of the above scenarios.
Claim 4 recites a limitation including "Formula 1". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as:
a) There is no basis provided for the units of temperature “T”, as such depending on whether Celsius, Fahrenheit, Kelvin, etc are used for input into the equation, the resulting scope of the inequality spans differing resulting values (for example, a temperature of 409oC = 682.15 K = 768.2 oF; which when plugged into the left side of Formula 1, for “T”, would result in values of 4.38, 7.49, and 8.47 respectively, considering each respective scale theses rates are quantitatively different as the time to cool from an equivalent temperatures (100-0 C, 375 to 275 K, and 212 to 0 F) would take drastically different times ( 22.84 sec, 13.35 sec, 25.01 sec) even though the same equivalent starting value for T was input). For purposes of examination T will be interpreted as at least inclusive of any such basis.
b) There is no basis provided for the units of “second average cooling rate”. As the constants provided in Formula 1 are unitless, the only units within the calculation would be derived by T, which above would be based in a unit of temperature (C, K, F, etc). As such, the calculated “second average cooling rate” would then be expressed in said unit of temperature, which doesn’t appear to conform with conventional designations for a cooling rate which would instead be based on temperature / time, such as oC/ min, oC/sec, oF/hr, K/day, etc. For purposes of examination the second average cooling rate will be interpreted as at least inclusive of any such basis.
Claim 6 is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. It is replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. As a result is it indefinite as to the scope of the claim intending to be captured, is it intending to require an area fraction of 70% or less of the total MgZn2 phase on a surface of the hot-dip alloy-plated layer formed on the base steel to be a MgZn2 phase possessing a ratio of an average minor axis length (a) to an average major axis length (b) equal to 0.5 or less; or that the total MgZn2 phase is within an area fraction of 70% or less of a surface, wherein the MgZn2 phase comprises an MgZn2 phase possessing the claimed aspect ratio, or is the intention something else entirely? For purposes of examination the claim will be interpreted as at least inclusive of any such scenario.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (KR 20140074231; citations directed to machine translation provided herein; hereafter Lee). {Kim US 2021/0214830 relied for evidence only for at least claims 2 and 4; hereafter Kim}
Claim 1: Lee teaches a method of manufacturing a plated steel material having excellent workability and corrosion resistance, (see, for example, [0001]) the method comprising:
immersing a base steel in a hot-dip alloy plating bath (see, for example, [0038], [0060]);
and forming a hot-dip alloy-plated layer on the base steel by drawing the immersed base steel from the hot-dip alloy plating bath and performing a cooling process (see, for example, [0060-62], examples)
wherein a first average cooling rate in the cooling process varies depending on a difference between a first temperature that is a temperature of the hot-dip alloy plating bath and a second temperature that is a solidification start temperature of a MgZn2 phase contained in the hot-dip alloy-plated layer (See, for example, Fig 1-2, [0060], [0065-0066], [0121] wherein the cooling temperature for the process is taught to vary from 15 to 30 C/s down to room temperature, thus inclusive of the second temperature, and Table 3 wherein for sample 3-3 the first temperature is 440oC and a cooling rate of 10C/s is used and for a sample 3-2, 3-6, or 3-8, wherein the first temperature is 470oC/ 480oC /490oC and a cooling rate of 15C/s is used; alternatively within any such value there is intrinsically some degree of variability).
Claim 2: Lee further teaches exemplary embodiments wherein the bath is at 400-460C or 430-470oC and the cooling rate is 20oC/s (See, for example, Example 1, table 1, Example 2, table 2, [0072], [0108]). Assuming a second temperature / solidification temperature on the order of 380oC {as evidenced by Kim [0056]} the cooling rate of 20oC/s would anticipate the claimed range at the temperature difference of either of the less than 50oC range or the 50-100oC; alternatively for sake of argument that 380oC is not reasonable for the solidification temperature / second temperature, the examiner notes that the explicitly taught cooling rate of 20oC/s anticipates all three of the claimed alternative conditions.
Claim 3: Lee has taught exemplary embodiments wherein the cooling rate is set at 20oC/s from bath removal till room temperature, which would include the claimed first average cooling rate / a 20ioC/s cooling rate for the period of time from bath removal to a time point at which the MgZn2 phase starts to solidify (See, for example, Example 1, table 1, Example 2, table 2, [0072], [0108]).
Claim 4: Assuming the solidification temperature of the MgZn2 phase is on the order of 380oC {as evidenced by Kim [0056]}, the second average cooling rate per the calculation of claimed formulation 1 would be~ 4.0< 2nd CR< 19.5; thus exemplary embodiments of cooling at 15oC/s, and 10oC/s would satisfy the claimed formula (See, for example, Example 3, Table 3, particularly samples 3-3, 3-4, 3-6, and 3-8, [0060], [0065-0066], [0121]). For sake of argument that 380C is not a reasonable solidification temperature, the examiner notes that a cooling rate of 15C/s satisfies Formula 1 for solidification temperatures ranging from 200oC (which inherently is well below any reasonably expected solidification temperature) well through the uppermost disclosed inventive bath temperature of 490C (see, for example, Table 3, samples 3-4, 3-6, and 3-8), and alternatively a cooling rate of 10 C/s satisfies Formula 1 for solidification temperatures ranging from 0oC well through the uppermost disclosed inventive bath temperature of 440C (see, for example, Table 3, sample 3-3),
Claim 5: Lee further teaches wherein the hot-dip alloy plating bath is a Zn plating bath comprising, by wt. %, 10.5%/ 12% / 15% of Al, 3 % of Mg, and inevitable impurities. (See, for example, Table 3).
Claim 6: Lee further teaches wherein an area fraction of a MgZn2 phase here a ratio of an average minor axis length (a) to an average major axis length (b) is 0.5 or less in the entire MgZn.sub.2 phase on a surface of the hot-dip alloy-plated layer formed on the base steel is 70% or less (see, for example, [0031], [0039], and Fig 1, wherein the micrograph of the plated surface demonstrates the presence of both polygonal MgZn2 and multi-phased “rod” phase MgZn2 which possesses the requisite aspect ratio and reside at well below 70% of the surface area. Lee further teaches such a phase fraction at 10-30 vol% (see, for example, [0024-27] [0051]). Additionally / Alternatively, the as claimed bath chemistries, temperatures, and cooling rates (Refer to rejections above) have all been anticipated and taught by Lee, therefore the resulting material property of solidified phase structure / content produced by Lee is believed to inherently achieve the same properties as claimed since 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 In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 PM.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712