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Claims 18-39 are pending wherein claims 18-25 are under examination and claims 26-34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected shaped sheet metal part with an anticorrosion coating and claims 35-39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected process for producing a shaped sheet metal part. Applicant’s election of claims 18-25 was made without traverse in the Response filed on June 23, 2026.
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 25 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 25 recites the broad recitation regarding elongation to break of “at least 15%”, and the claim also recites “at least 20%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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
Element
Instant Claim
(weight percent)
Takashima et al. (EP ‘447)
(mass percent)
Overlap
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% or at least 20%” 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 22, 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.
In regard to claim 24, none of the compositional layers in Alley et al. suggest an aluminum base alloy with 1 to 15 weight percent silicon, 2 to 4 weight percent iron up to 5 weight percent of alkali metals or alkaline earth metals, up to 10% Zn, constituents limited to a total of not more than 2 weight percent and the balance aluminum. However, the Al rich zone of Alley et al. in Figure 2 would read on the “alloy layer” with 35 to 60% iron, constituent limited to 5% and the balance aluminum as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang, G. K., et al. "An advance process of aluminum rich coating as tritium permeation barrier on 321 steel workpiece." Fusion Engineering and Design 87.7-8 (2012): 1370-1375.
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