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’ March 02, 2026 response to the November 04, 2025 Non-Final Rejection is acknowledged. Claims 1-4, 7-24 are pending, claims 1 and 18 are independent. Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 and 7-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cretteur et al. (US 2015/0030382 A1), hereinafter Cretteur in view of Maruyama et al. (US 2017/0350434 A1), hereinafter Maruyama (both of record in the application)
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 18 and 19, Cretteur teaches a welded part obtained by but welding a first and second steel sheet where a pre-coating of a metal alloy layer of aluminum-alloy is contacting the steel substrate (first and second sheets) with a weld metal zone formed from a welding operation that forms a bond (joint portion of weld metal; one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably understands all fusion welds have a HAZ) (claim 1), the metal alloy layer has 2-4 weight% iron ([0066]; Al-Fe based coating), the tensile strength can include values of 1470-1545 MPa, where the fracture occurs in the base metal ([0221], first and second steel sheets).
Cretteur does not teach specifically when a cross section of the weld metal in a sheet thickness direction orthogonal to an extension direction of the joint portion is defined as a measurement surface, an average Cu content in the weld metal at the measurement surface is 0.03-3.00 mass%, nor an average Al content in the weld metal at the measurement surface is less than 1.00 mass%, nor wherein Cu/Al in the measurement surface is 0.15-3.90.
Maruyama is in a similar field of endeavor of weld metal between a plurality of steel sheets, where average hardness is important (Abstract) and the steel sheet(s) may be plated ([0036]) and teaches weld metal of mass% 0-1.0% Cu (claim 1) that is obtained by weld metal from which a sample is cut and polished ([0069]; one of ordinary skill in the art understands that due to the degree of overlap between applicant and Maruyama that this includes cross section averages as claimed), weld metal of mass% 0-1.0% Cu and Al: 0.005-1.0% (claim 1) that is obtained by weld metal from which a sample is cut and ([0069]; this calculates to 0-200 Cu/Al ratio; one of ordinary skill in the art understands that due to the degree of overlap between applicant and Maruyama that this includes cross section averages as claimed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Cretteur to incorporate the Cu and Al of Maruyama in the weld metal. The motivation for doing so would have been from being in the steel sheet to control the metallographic structure of the steel sheet ([0120]; [0088]), which is desired to be martensitic in both Cretteur ([0016]) and Maruyama (claim 4)
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 2, Cretteur in view of Maruyama teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above and Cretteur further teaches the ratio between the hardness of the weld metal zone and the hardness of the substrate of the first or second sheet that has a higher carbon content is greater than 1.029 (examiner notes that the C ranges of Cretteur overlap [0035]-[0046]) and the hardness of the sheet can be 480 HV ([0016]; which means the weld metal can be higher than the second steel sheet substrate and 350 Hv). 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 claims 7 and 20, Cretteur in view of Maruyama teaches each limitation of claims 1 and 18, as discussed above and Cretteur further teaches the steel substrate of the sheet exhibits the following weight composition: 0.10-0.5% C, 0.5-3% Mn, Si: 0.1-1%, Cr: 0.01-1%, Ti ≤ 0.2%, Al ≤ 0.1%, S ≤ 0.05%, P ≤ 0.1% and the balance of Fe and unavoidable impurities ([0145]-[0154]). Regarding the rest of the claimed elements, Cretteur does not teach these elements, such that they are not considered to be present in an appreciable amount, also note examples. If these elements are not listed it is understood to one of ordinary skill in the art that it is reasonable that they are not present. Therefore the elements are considered to be present in an amount within, or at least overlapping, applicant’s claimed proportions (which include 0%).
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 claims 8 and 21, Cretteur in view of Maruyama teaches each limitation of claims 1, 7, 18 and 20, as discussed above. Cretteur does not teach specifically wherein a total amount of a Cu content in the chemical composition of the steel sheet is 0.05-3.00%
Maruyama is in a similar field of endeavor of weld metal between a plurality of steel sheets, where average hardness is important (Abstract) and the steel sheet(s) may be plated ([0036]) and teaches weld metal of mass% 0-1.0% Cu (claim 1) and the composition of the weld metal is substantially the same as the steel sheet ([0181]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Cretteur to incorporate the Cu of Maruyama in the steel sheet. The motivation for doing so would have been from being in the steel sheet to control the metallographic structure of the steel sheet ([0120]), which is desired to be martensitic in both Cretteur ([0016]) and Maruyama (claim 4)
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 claims 9-11 and 22-24, Cretteur in view of Maruyama teaches each limitation of claims 1, 7, 8, 18, 20 and 21, as discussed above. Cretteur does not teach specifically wherein a total amount of one or more of Mn, Cr, Mo, Ni, Sn, and W in the weld metal at the measurement surface is 1.2% or more.
Maruyama is in a similar field of endeavor of weld metal between a plurality of steel sheets, where average hardness is important (Abstract) ) and the steel sheet(s) may be plated ([0036]) and teaches weld metal of mass% Mn: 0.5-6.0%, 0-5.0% Cr, 0-1.0% Mo, and 0-10.0% Ni (claim 1) that is obtained by weld metal from which a sample is cut and ([0069]; one of ordinary skill in the art understands that due to the degree of overlap between applicant and Maruyama that this includes cross section averages as claimed). Regarding Sn and W, any inclusion of these would only further meet the claimed total amount, as the amount of Mn, Cr, Mo and Ni in Maruyama is collectively 0.5-16.0%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Cretteur to incorporate the Mn, Cr, Mo and Ni of Maruyama in the weld metal. The motivation for doing so would have been from being in the steel sheet to control the metallographic structure of the steel sheet ([0091]; [0113]), which is desired to be martensitic in both Cretteur ([0016]) and Maruyama (claim 4)
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 claims 12-17, Cretteur in view of Maruyama teaches each limitation of claims 1 and 7-11, as discussed above. Cretteur further teaches tensile strengths of 1470-1545 MPa where the fracture occurs in the base metal (first or second sheet) ([0221]). 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed March 02, 2026, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of November 04, 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed March 02, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding the claim rejections. Applicant first alleges that the disclosed range of Maruyama for 0-200 is “so broad that there can been no possible motivation”. This is not persuasive, as the overlap itself is the motivation. In the ranges taught by the prior art, there are values that meet the claimed ratio (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).
Applicant then argues alleged advantageous corrosion effects result from the claimed range of Cu/Al. To establish the unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed ranges to show the criticality of the claimed range (MPEP 716.02(d),II). Applicant references two data points outside the lower limit of 0.13 and 0.12 Cu/Al ratios, but fails to provide any corresponding data points on the inside of the claimed lower limit. Generally referencing “all of the inventive examples” does not prove a nexus of criticality of 0.15% by applicant. Further, examiner notes that 0.12 and 0.13 are not supportive of “0.15” lower limit, as there is no evidence that 0.14 is outside a range that provides the desired benefit. Regarding the upper limit, applicant does provide data inside their range but no data outside upper limit. Thus, applicant has failed to compare a sufficient number of tests inside and outside both ends of the claimed range and has failed to prove any criticality of the claimed range. Applicant provides general assertions to greater than 3.90 but no data. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that the prior art does not disclose or suggest the desired effects of applicant, this 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). Therefore, this argument is also not persuasive.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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