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 18-34 and 40-44 are pending wherein claim 25 is amended, claims 1-17 and 35-39 are canceled, claims 40-44 are new, claims 26-34 are withdrawn from consideration.
Examiner Note
Although the units for zinc in claims 24 and 40 are not specified in the claims, the units have been determined to be weight percent since that is consistent with the units throughout the specification and the other elements in the claims.
Status of Previous Rejections
The previous rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 25.
Claim Objections
Claims 40-44 are objected to because of the following informalities: ”balanced” should be changed to “balance” in claims 40-41. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 18-22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima et al. (EP 3 647 447 A1).
In regard to claim 18, Takashima et al. (EP ‘447) discloses steel sheet alloys having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below [0012].
Element
Instant Claim
(weight percent)
Takashima et al. (EP ‘447)
(mass percent)
Overlap
C
0.06 – 0.5
0.28 – 0.42
0.28 – 0.42
Si
0.05 – 0.6
0 – 1.5
0.05 – 0.6
Mn
0.4 – 3.0
1 – 2.4
1 – 2.4
Al
0.06 – 1.0
0.01 – 0.50
0.06 – 0.50
Nb
0.001 – 0.2
0.005 – 0.15
0.005 – 0.15
Ti
0.001 – 0.10
0.005 – 0.15
0.005 – 0.10
B
0.0005 – 0.01
0.0005 – 0.005
0.0005 – 0.005
P
0 – 0.03
0 – 0.05
0 – 0.03
S
0 – 0.02
0 – 0.005
0 – 0.005
N
0 – 0.02
0 – 0.005
0 – 0.005
Sn
0 – 0.03
0 – 0.50
0 – 0.03
As
0 – 0.01
0
0
Fe
Balance
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of carbon, silicon, manganese, aluminum, niobium, titanium, boron, phosphorus, sulfur, nitrogen, tin, and arsenic for the steel alloys disclosed by Takashima et al. (EP ‘447) 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 carbon, silicon, manganese, aluminum, niobium, titanium, boron, phosphorus, sulfur, nitrogen, tin, and arsenic from the amounts disclosed by Takashima et al. (EP ‘447) because Takashima et al. (EP ‘447) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
With respect to the recitation “for hot forming” in claim 18, this is a recitation of intended use that would not further limit the structure of the alloy. MPEP 2111.02 II.
With respect to the recitation “wherein an Al/Nb ratio of Al content to Nb content is: Al/Nb ≤ 20.0 when Mn ≤ 1.6% by weight; and Al/Nb ≤ 30.0 when Mn ≥ 1.7% by weight” in claim 18, Takashima et al. (EP ‘447) discloses alloy compositions such as one having 1.50 mass percent manganese, 0.30 mass percent aluminum and 0.10 mass percent niobium. As such Al/Nb would be 3 and would read on the claim.
In regard to claim 19, Takashima et al. (EP ‘447) discloses wherein the alloy would have 0.50 mass percent or less chromium, which would overlap the range of the instant invention [0012]. MPEP 2144.05 I.
In regard to claim 20, Takashima et al. (EP ‘447) discloses 1 to 2.4 mass percent manganese and 0 to 0.5 mass percent chromium [0012]. Thus, the range of manganese plus chromium in Takashima et al. (EP 447) would range from 1 to 2.9 mass percent, which would be within the range of the instant invention.
In regard to claim 21, Takashima et al. (EP ‘447) discloses wherein the titanium would range from 0.005 to 0.15 mass percent and the nitrogen would range from 0 to 0.005 mass percent [0012]. Thus the range of 3.42N would be from 0 to 0.0171, which would be greater than 0.005 to 0.017 mass percent titanium in those instances.
In regard to claims 22, Takashima et al. (EP ‘447) discloses an aluminum or aluminum alloys coating (anticorrosion) [0012].
With respect to the recitation “further comprising one or more properties of: a yield point with a continuous progression (Rp0.2) or a yield point with a difference (ΔRe) between an upper yield point limit (ReH) and a lower yield point limit (ReL) of not more than 45 MPa; a uniform expansion Ag of at least 10%; and an elongation to break A80 at least 15%” in claim 25, Takashima et al. (EP ‘447) discloses substantially similar compositions. Therefore, one or more of the claimed properties would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima et al. (EP 3 647 447 A1) as applied to claim 22, and further in view of Alley et al. “Anticorrosion mechanisms of aluminized steel for hot stamping”.
In regard to claim 23, Takashima et al. (EP ‘447) discloses an anticorrosion coating of aluminum or aluminum based alloys or zinc or zinc based alloys [0012]. However, Takashima et al. (EP ‘447) fails to specify a layer structure having the claimed steel composition with an aluminum alloy base layer as well as an aluminum anticorrosion coating on top.
Alley et al. teaches coating steel material with Usibor® AlSi such that a multilayer structure would be formed on the steel with a diffusion zone with 8% Al and 3% Si, an Fe rich zone with 26% Al and 10% Si on top of the diffusion zone and an Al rich zone on top of that with 52% Al and 2% Si in order to provide corrosion protection such that there is a combination of sacrificial protection by an active metal and a barrier protection by a suitable corrosion product (page 188 right column to page 189, left column and Figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to modify the aluminum or aluminum alloy anticorrosion coating, as disclosed by Takashima et al. (EP ‘447), by coating the steel material with Usibor® AlSi such that a multilayer structure would be formed on the steel with a diffusion zone with 8% Al and 3% Si, an Fe rich zone with 26% Al and 10% Si on top of the diffusion zone and an Al rich zone on top of that with 52% Al and 2% Si, as disclosed by Alley et al., in order to provide corrosion protection such that there is a combination of sacrificial protection by an active metal and a barrier protection by a suitable corrosion product, as disclosed by Alley et al. (page 188 right column to page 189, left column and Figure 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is 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.
Claim 24 is objected to for as being an allowable dependent claim if incorporated into claim 18 with the limitations of claim 22 and claim 23.
Claims 40-44 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regard to claim 40, neither Takashima et al. (EP ‘447), nor Alley et al. disclose or adequately suggest a flat steel product comprising a steel substrate composed 0.06 to 0.5 weight percent carbon, 0.05 to 0.6 weight percent silicon, 0.4 to 3.0 weight percent manganese, 0.06 to 1 weight percent aluminum, 0.001 to 0.2 weight percent niobium, 0.001 to 0.10 weight percent titanium, 0.0005 to 0.01 weight percent boron, less than or equal to 0.03 weight percent phosphorus, less than or equal to 0.02 weight percent sulfur, less than or equal to 0.02 weight percent nitrogen, less than or equal to 0.03 weight percent tin, less than or equal to 0.01 weight percent arsenic, less than or equal to 0.2 weight percent impurities, wherein an Al/Nb ratio is less than or equal to 20 when manganese is less than or equal to 1.6 weight percent and less than or equal to 30 when manganese is greater than or equal to 1.7 weight percent, an anticorrosion coating on at least one side of the steel substrate, wherein the anticorrosion coating is an an aluminum base alloy with an alloy layer and an aluminum base layer wherein the aluminum base layer comprises 1 to 15 weight percent silicon, 2 to 4 weight percent iron, up to 5 weight percent alkali metals or alkaline earth metals, up to 10 (weight percent) zinc, constituents limited to a total of not more than 2 weight percent and the balance aluminum.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant primarily argues that Takashima et al. (EP ‘447) discloses 0.01 to 0.50 weight percent aluminum and 0.005 to 0.15 weight percent niobium as independent elements for unrelated purposes, e.g. aluminum for deoxidation and niobium for precipitate formation to suppress welding cracking. Applicant further argues that Takashima et al. (EP ‘447) is silent regarding any Al/Nb ratio, any dependence of optimal Al or Nb on Mn content, and any role of Al/Nb in grain refining via AlN precipitation and Takashima et al. (EP ‘447) provides no basis to correlate these elements. The Applicant additionally argues that in Takashima et al. (EP ‘447) Al/Nb varies from 0.067 to 100 and the majority of the compositions in Takashima et al. (EP ‘447) do not satisfy the claimed Al/Nb ratio when Mn is less than or equal to 1.6 weight percent.
In response, the Examiner notes that Takashima et al. (EP ‘447) discloses alloy compositions such as one having 1.50 mass percent manganese, 0.30 mass percent aluminum and 0.10 mass percent niobium. As such Al/Nb would be 3 and would read on the claim. Applicant has failed to demonstrate the criticality of the claimed Al/Nb ratio. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). MPEP 716.02(d)(II).
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 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
