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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Examiner Note
Examiner notes that a double patenting rejecting with 18691456 was considered but the solute claimed in the last line of their respective claim 1s, is in different phases and there is not substantial overlap in processing between the applications. Therefore, the claim sets are not obvious over each other.
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.
Claims 3, 5, 6 and 8 are rejected 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 or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 3 and 6, it is indefinite in what units the FeAl/Fe2Al5 ratio is measured (claim 1 uses mass%, other claims like claims 4 and 5 use an area ratio). For purposes of examination either a mass or area ratio shall be considered to meet this claim limitation.
Regarding claims 5 and 8, these claims are rejected for their incorporation of the above due to their dependencies on claim 3 (claim 5) and claim 6 (claim 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sengoku et al. (US 2020/0032360 A1), hereinafter Sengoku (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Sengoku teaches a hot stamped body (Abstract) including an interface layer is formed adjacent to a base metal (distributed over a side of the base metal) and has a microstructure which contains an Fe-Al alloy as a main component, which means alpha Fe, Fe3Al and FeAl (one or more of these) ([0072]) and an intermediate layer contains Fe-Al-Zn phase as a main component where the term “Fe-Al-Zn phase” is a collective term including Fe(Al,Zn)2, Fe2(Al,Zn)5 and Fe(Al, Zn)3, and the intermediate layer 22 has a microstructure including one or more of these phases and the total area is preferably 99% or more of these phases ([0076]), and an oxide layer that contains Zn as a main component ([0083]), where the layers are in order from the base metal side, an interface layer, an intermediate layer and an oxide layer ([0071]; the interface and intermediate layers collectively are considered the plated layer on a side of the steel sheet), the base metal is a steel sheet ([0124]). Sengoku further teaches the interface layer (where the Fe-Al alloy is) contains Zn of 10% or less ([0073]), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art understands the solute Zn in the FeAl overlaps this amount.
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.
Examiner also notes that Fe2(Al,Zn)5 is a species of Fe2Al5.
Regarding claim 2, Sengoku teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above, and further teaches an average film thickness of the oxide layer is ≤ 3.0 micron (claim 1) and the oxide layer that contains Zn as a main component ([0083]).
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 3 and 6, Sengoku teaches each limitation of claims 1 and 2, as discussed above, and further teaches thickness of the interface layer is 1.0 micron or more ([0023]) and the thickness of the intermediate layer is 5.0 micron or more ([0082]), the total area of an Fe-Al alloy is preferably 99% or more in the interface layer ([0072]), the intermediate layer has a total area fraction of an Fe-Al-Zn phase is 99% or more ([0076]) and the interface layer can include just FeAl ([0072]) and the intermediate layer can only contain Fe2(Al,Zn)5 ([0076]), these include values that calculate to an area ratio of FeAl/Fe2Al5 overlapping those claimed (for example, an interface thickness of 25 microns and an intermediate layer of 5 microns).
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 4-5 and 7-8, Sengoku teaches each limitation of claims 1-3 and 6, as discussed above, and further teaches thickness of the interface layer is 1.0 micron or more ([0023]) and the thickness of the intermediate layer is 5.0 micron or more ([0082]), the total area of an Fe-Al alloy is preferably 99% or more in the interface layer ([0072]), the intermediate layer has a total area fraction of an Fe-Al-Zn phase is 99% or more ([0076], the interface layer can include just FeAl ([0072]) and the intermediate layer can only contain Fe2(Al,Zn)5 ([0076]), and the intermediate layer plating bath can include 15-30% Zn ([0107]; i.e. all the Zn for the entire plating layer). Collectively, these measurements include values that overlap the area ratio of Zn in the coated or plated layer of 0.10-5.0% (as the interface layer can be 5x the intermediate layers area ratio).
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.
Conclusion
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