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
Claims 1-6 are pending:
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2024, 07/24/2025, 07/24/2025, 10/03/2025, 01/29/2026, 05/04/2026 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification - Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
More than one paragraph.
More than 150 words.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 12,480,175).
Claim 1
Yang discloses:
“A steel welded member comprised of a plurality of Zn-based plated steel materials (C32L22-40, Zn coated steel sheet), each comprised of a steel material (C32L22-40, Zn coated steel sheet) and a Zn-based plating layer on its surface (C32L22-40, Zn coated steel sheet), joined by at least one spot weld (C20L63-65), in which steel welded member,
at least one of the Zn-based plated steel materials has a 780 MPa or more tensile strength (C1L6-10, tensile strength between 780-1180 MPa), that steel material has a chemical composition containing, by mass%, (chemical composition disclosed over C3-4, citations below indicate the sub-section by reference to the [x] section that the particular material is disclosed within;)
C: 0.05 to 0.40% ([2] 0.12-0.40%), Si: 0.2 to 3.0% ([1] 0.3-2.0%), Mn: 0.1 to 5.0% ([1] 1.0-2.70%), sol. Al: 0.4 to 1.50% ([2] 0.01-2.0%), P: 0.0300% or less ([2] 0.05% or less; C7L64-C8L3, most preferred range of 0.0005-0.02%), S: 0.0300% or less ([2] 0.02% or less), N: 0.0100% or less ([2] 0.01% or less), B: 0 to 0.010% ([3] 0.005% or less), Ti: 0 to 0.150% ([3] 0.05% or less), Nb: 0 to 0.150% ([3] 0-0.50%; C8L49-60, most preferred range of 0.02-0.30%), V: 0 to 0.150% ([4] 0-0.1%), Cr: 0 to 2.00% ([3] 0-1.0%), Ni: 0 to 2.00% ([4] 0-0.1%), Cu: 0 to 2.00% ([4] 0-0.1%), Mo: 0 to 1.00% ([3] 0-0.5%), W: 0 to 1.00% ([4] 0-0.1%), Ca: 0 to 0.100% ([4] 0-0.1%), Mg: 0 to 0.100% ([4] 0-0.1%), Zr: 0 to 0.100% ([4] 0-0.1%), Hf: 0 to 0.100% ([4] 0-0.1%), and REM: 0 to 0.100% ([4] 0-0.1%) and having a balance of Fe and impurities ([2] “remainder being Fe and incidental impurities) and,
…”
Yang discloses (citation above) a range for Aluminum (Al) to be between 0.01-2.0%. Aluminum’s disclosed range of 0.01-2.0% encompasses the somewhat narrower claimed range of 0.4-1.50%.
Yang anticipates the vast majority of all claimed chemical composition ranges, and discloses a range for aluminum that encompasses the only somewhat narrower claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05.I: “claimed alloy held obvious over prior art alloy that taught ranges of weight percentages overlapping, and in most instances completely encompassing, claimed ranges; furthermore, narrower ranges taught by reference overlapped all but one range in claimed invention”. In the instant situation:
Yang further discloses (citation above) a range for Niobium (Nb) of 0.02-0.30%.
Niobium’s disclosed range has an overlapping endpoint (0.02%) within the claimed range (0-0.15%). Further, Yang’s lower bound of 0.02% is the same as Applicant’s identified (Para30) lower point of 0.02%. Per MPEP 2144.05.I: an overlapping endpoint of a prior art range to the claimed range is sufficient to support an obviousness rejection.
Yang is does not explicitly disclose the particularly claimed penetration depth and location caused by the disclosed (C20L63-65, C32L22-40) spot welding on the Zn coated steel sheet.
Yang teaches (C2L42-61, crack depth) the resulting surface properties of the Zn coated steel sheet after welding as evidence as the result of the high LME resistance property.
Yang further teaches (C20L49-67) that the motivation of the arrangement is to have a high LME resistance for a spot welded steel sheet with a zinc coating.
Applicant’s motivation (Para1) is to have a high liquid metal embrittlement (LME) resistance to spot welding which (in particular Fig5/Para75/78, but also Para10/58/74-75/99) results in selecting their particular Zn penetration depth/arrangement is based on reducing liquid metal embrittlement (LME) based on the grain boundaries of the steel.
According to MPEP 2144.05.II.B, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
to select a mass% of Al and Nb within the particularly claimed ranges, as the disclosed Al range encompasses the only somewhat narrower claimed range, and the disclosed Nb range has an overlapping endpoint within the claimed range, and each selection for Al and Nb is within the bounds of an obvious selection for one of ordinary skill in the art, as discussed above, and
to perform a routine result-effective variable optimization on the spot welding of Yang, as Yang teaches that the variable of the spot welding surface properties of the Zn coated steel sheet, in particular in the depth direction, results in changes to the desired high LME resistance; and
the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Yang with
patentably the same mass% for Al and Nb, and
for the result-effective variable optimization to result in the same patentable surface properties as both Applicant and Yang have the same variable (spot welding surface properties of the Zn coated steel sheet) with the same motivation (high LME resistance to spot welding) which would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the same patentable result.
Claim 2
The modified arrangement of Yang as applied in Claim 1 discloses: “The steel welded member according to claim 1, wherein the difference of the Zn penetration depth minus the depth of the internal oxidation layer is within 1.5 to 10.0 µm in range (limitation is within the scope of the result-effective variable optimization discussed in Claim 1).”
Claim 5
The modified arrangement of Yang as applied in Claim 1 discloses: “The steel welded member according to claim 2, wherein in a region of more than 1000 µm from the end of the pressure weld of the spot weld (limitation is within the scope of the modification applied in Claim 1), the Zn-based plating layer has a chemical composition containing, by mass%, Al: 0.3 to 1.5% (Yang: C14L43-57, Al: 0.001-1.0% mass) and having a balance of Zn and impurities (Yang: C14L43-57, remainder Zn and incidental impurities).”
Aluminum’s disclosed range has an overlapping endpoint (1.0%) within the claimed range (0.3-1.5%). Per MPEP 2144.05.I: an overlapping endpoint of a prior art range to the claimed range is sufficient to support an obviousness rejection.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a mass% of Al within the particularly claimed range, as the disclosed Al range has an overlapping endpoint within the claimed range, and such a selection for Al is within the bounds of an obvious selection for one of ordinary skill in the art, as discussed above, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Yang with a patentably the same mass% for Al as selected by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 6
The modified arrangement of Yang as applied in Claim 1 discloses: “The steel welded member according to claim 2, wherein in a region of more than 1000 µm from the end of the pressure weld of the spot weld (limitation is within the scope of the modification applied in Claim 1), the Zn-based plating layer has a chemical composition containing, by mass%, Al: 0 to less than 0.1% (Yang: C14L43-57, Al: 0.001-1.0% mass) and having a balance of Zn and impurities (Yang: C14L43-57, remainder Zn and incidental impurities).”
Aluminum’s disclosed range has an overlapping endpoint (0.001%) within the claimed range (0-0.1%). Per MPEP 2144.05.I: an overlapping endpoint of a prior art range to the claimed range is sufficient to support an obviousness rejection.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a mass% of Al within the particularly claimed range, as the disclosed Al range has an overlapping endpoint within the claimed range, and such a selection for Al is within the bounds of an obvious selection for one of ordinary skill in the art, as discussed above, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Yang with a patentably the same mass% for Al as selected by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 3
The modified arrangement of Yang as applied in Claim 1 discloses: “The steel welded member according to claim 1, wherein in a region of more than 1000 µm from the end of the pressure weld of the spot weld (limitation is within the scope of the modification applied in Claim 1), the Zn-based plating layer has a chemical composition containing, by mass%, Al: 0.3 to 1.5% (Yang: C14L43-57, Al: 0.001-1.0% mass) and having a balance of Zn and impurities.”
Aluminum’s disclosed range has an overlapping endpoint (1.0%) within the claimed range (0.3-1.5%). Per MPEP 2144.05.I: an overlapping endpoint of a prior art range to the claimed range is sufficient to support an obviousness rejection.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a mass% of Al within the particularly claimed range, as the disclosed Al range has an overlapping endpoint within the claimed range, and such a selection for Al is within the bounds of an obvious selection for one of ordinary skill in the art, as discussed above, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Yang with a patentably the same mass% for Al as selected by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 4
The modified arrangement of Yang as applied in Claim 1 discloses: “The steel welded member according to claim 1, wherein in a region of more than 1000 µm from the end of the pressure weld of the spot weld (limitation is within the scope of the modification applied in Claim 1), the Zn-based plating layer has a chemical composition containing, by mass%, Al: 0 to less than 0.1% (Yang: C14L43-57, Al: 0.001-1.0% mass) and having a balance of Zn and impurities (Yang: C14L43-57, remainder Zn and incidental impurities).”
Aluminum’s disclosed range has an overlapping endpoint (0.001%) within the claimed range (0-0.1%). Per MPEP 2144.05.I: an overlapping endpoint of a prior art range to the claimed range is sufficient to support an obviousness rejection.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a mass% of Al within the particularly claimed range, as the disclosed Al range has an overlapping endpoint within the claimed range, and such a selection for Al is within the bounds of an obvious selection for one of ordinary skill in the art, as discussed above, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Yang with a patentably the same mass% for Al as selected by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOHN S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights