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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending and are currently under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuaki et al. (JP 5700394 B).
In regard to claim 1, Kazuaki et al. (JP ‘394) discloses arc welding steel sheets having plating layer compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below (claim 6 and [0013-0014]).
Element
Instant Claim
(mass percent)
Kazuaki et al. (JP ‘394)
(weight percent)
Overlap
Al
5 – 40
3 – 22
5 – 22
Mg
3 – 15
0.5 – 10
3 – 10
Fe
0.01 – 15
0 – 2
0.01 – 2
Si
0 – 10
0 – 2
0 – 2
Ca
0 – 1.5
0
0
Sb
0 – 0.50
0
0
Pb
0 – 0.50
0
0
Sr
0 – 0.50
0
0
Cu
0 – 1
0
0
Element
Instant Claim
(mass percent)
Kazuaki et al. (JP ‘394)
(weight percent)
Overlap
Ti
0 – 1
0 – 0.10
0 – 0.10
V
0 – 1
0
0
Cr
0 – 1
0 – 1
0 – 1
Nb
0 – 1
0 – 1
0 – 1
Ni
0 – 1
0
0
Mn
0 – 1
0
0
Mo
0 – 1
0 – 1
0 – 1
Sn
0 – 1
0
0
Zr
0 – 1
0
0
Co
0 – 1
0
0
W
0 – 1
0
0
Ag
0 – 1
0
0
Li
0 – 1
0
0
La
0 – 0.5
0
0
Ce
0 – 0.5
0
0
Y
0 – 0.5
0
0
Bi
0 – 0.5
0
0
In
0 – 0.5
0
0
B
0 – 0.5
0 – 0.05
0 – 0.05
Zn
20 or more
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of aluminum, magnesium, iron, silicon, calcium, antimony, lead, lead, strontium, copper, titanium, vanadium, chromium, niobium, nickel, manganese, molybdenum, tin, zirconium, cobalt, tungsten, silver, lithium, lanthanum, cerium, yttrium, bismuth, indium, boron and zinc for the alloys disclosed by Kazuaki et al. (JP ‘394) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of aluminum, magnesium, iron, silicon, calcium, antimony, lead, lead, strontium, copper, titanium, vanadium, chromium, niobium, nickel, manganese, molybdenum, tin, zirconium, cobalt, tungsten, silver, lithium, lanthanum, cerium, yttrium, bismuth, indium, boron and zinc from the amounts disclosed by Kazuaki et al. (JP ‘394) because Kazuaki et al. (JP ‘394) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
With respect to the recitation “when observing a cross section orthogonal to an extending direction of the weld bead portion, in a back surface of a surface having the weld bead portion, toward a direction orthogonal to the extending direction of the weld bead portion and away from a toe of the weld bead portion, in a region from a position set as a starting point where coating with the plating layer is started to a position 1,000 µm away from the starting point,
Expression is satisfied , where Lo is a horizontal length of an observation field and L is a surface unevenness length of the plating layer in the observation field, and an area ratio of an Mg-Zn phase in the plating layer of the region from the starting point to the position 1,000 µm away from the starting point is 5% or more, (L-Lo)/Lo x 100 ≥ 3 (1)” in claim 1, Kazuaki et al. (JP ‘394) discloses bead welding a substantially similar composition. Therefore, the claimed observations/properties would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 2, Kazuaki et al. (JP ‘394) discloses wherein the plating layer composition would have 0 to 2 weight percent silicon (claim 6 and [0013]).
In regard to claim 3, Kazuaki et al. (JP ‘394) discloses 0.5 to 10 weight percent magnesium, which overlaps the range of the instant invention (claim 6 and [0013]).
With respect to the recitation “the area ratio of the Mg-Zn phase in the plating layer of the region is 20% or more” in claim 3, Kazuaki et al. (JP ‘394) discloses bead welding a substantially similar composition. Therefore, the claimed observation/property would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 4, Kazuaki et al. (JP ‘394) 0.5 to 10 weight percent, which overlaps the range of the instant invention (claim 6 and [0013]). MPEP 2144.05 I.
With respect to the recitation “the area ratio of the Mg-Zn phase in the plating layer of the region is 30% or more” in claim 4, Kazuaki et al. (JP ‘394) discloses bead welding a substantially similar composition. Therefore, the claimed observation/property would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 5, Kazuaki et al. (JP ‘394) discloses 3 to 22 weight percent, which overlaps the range of the instant invention (claim 6 and [0013]).
With respect to the recitation “a value on a left side of Expression (1) is 6 or more” in claim 5, Kazuaki et al. (JP ‘394) discloses bead welding a substantially similar composition. Therefore, the claimed value would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 6, Kazuaki et al. (JP ‘394) discloses 3 to 22 weight percent, which overlaps the range of the instant invention (claim 6 and [0013]).
With respect to the recitation “a value on a left side of Expression (1) is 6 or more” in claim 6, Kazuaki et al. (JP ‘394) discloses bead welding a substantially similar composition. Therefore, the claimed value would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 7, Kazuaki et al. (JP ‘394) discloses 3 to 22 weight percent, which overlaps the range of the instant invention (claim 6 and [0013]).
With respect to the recitation “a value on a left side of Expression (1) is 6 or more” in claim 7, Kazuaki et al. (JP ‘394) discloses bead welding a substantially similar composition. Therefore, the claimed value would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 8, Kazuaki et al. (JP ‘394) discloses 3 to 22 weight percent, which overlaps the range of the instant invention (claim 6 and [0013]).
With respect to the recitation “a value on a left side of Expression (1) is 8 or more” in claim 8, Kazuaki et al. (JP ‘394) discloses bead welding a substantially similar composition. Therefore, the claimed value would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 9, Kazuaki et al. (JP ‘394) discloses 3 to 22 weight percent, which overlaps the range of the instant invention (claim 6 and [0013]).
With respect to the recitation “a value on a left side of Expression (1) is 8 or more” in claim 9, Kazuaki et al. (JP ‘394) discloses bead welding a substantially similar composition. Therefore, the claimed value would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 10, Kazuaki et al. (JP ‘394) discloses 3 to 22 weight percent, which overlaps the range of the instant invention (claim 6 and [0013]).
With respect to the recitation “a value on a left side of Expression (1) is 8 or more” in claim 10, Kazuaki et al. (JP ‘394) discloses bead welding a substantially similar composition. Therefore, the claimed value would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claims 11-19, Kazuaki et al. (JP ‘394) fails to specify wherein tin in an amount of 0.02 to 1 mass percent would be included in plating layer alloy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Examiner is not aware of additional prior art that would be pertinent to the subject matter of the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights