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 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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites the limitation “the maximum autocorrelation length.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. More specifically, “a maximum autocorrelation length” is recited in instant claim 2, but instant claim 4 depends on instant claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-17 are allowed.
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Instant claims 1-4, 9 and 10 are directed to a ferritic stainless steel sheet as set forth in the instant claims and instant claims 5-7 and 11-17 are directed to production methods of the ferritic stainless steel sheets of instant claims 1-4, 9 and 10. The closest prior art of record is JP 2001335997 A to Shimizu et al. Shimizu discloses a 60-degree specular gloss of 20 or less and an L* value of 70 or more are achieved by making the shape of the fine irregularities on the surface of the steel plate such that the width w (μm) of each irregularity is 20 μm or less, and the ratio of width w to peak height h (μm) w/h is in the range of 2 to 10 (Shimizu, para [0004]). This stainless steel sheet is manufactured by an electrolytic process in which the stainless steel sheet is immersed in an electrolyte solution with a hydrochloric acid concentration of 3 to 30% by mass and a liquid temperature of 30 to 70°C, and an electric charge of 1.5 × 10⁴ coulombs/m² or more is supplied to at least one side of the stainless steel sheet by anode electrolysis with a current density of 1 to 10 kA/m². The electrolyte may contain one or more substances selected from nitric acid, sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid, chromic acid, and oxalic acid, in a total amount of 5% by mass or less (Shimizu, para [0005]). Shimizu differs from instant claims 1-4, 9 and 10 at least in that Shimizu fails to disclose the instantly claimed limitations of “an area ratio of the plateau portions is 30 % to 70 %, Sdr of the plateau portions is 0.100 or less, and Sdq of the valley portions is 0.20 or more, and Sal is 50 µm or less, and Str is 0.30 or more, where Sdr, Sdq, Sal, and Str are a developed interfacial area ratio of scale-limited surface, a root mean square gradient of scale-limited surface, an autocorrelation length, and a texture aspect ratio defined in JIS B 0681-2: 2018, respectively.” Furthermore, Shimizu differs from method claims 5-7 and 11-17 in that Shimizu fails to disclose the particulars of method claims 5-7 and 11-17, more specifically fails to disclose the particulars of the dull roll used for skin pass rolling.
Other pertinent prior art of record includes JP2020056878A to Takahashi et al which discloses that microscopic surface roughness can be evaluated based on Sdr, Sdq, Sal and Str (Takahashi, para [0034]) and CN 106583449A to Yang et al which discloses a method of manufacturing similar to that of the instant claims (Yang, para [0016-0020]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN D WALCK whose telephone number is (571)270-5905. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 AM - 6:30 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
/BRIAN D WALCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights