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’ June 24, 2026 response to the April 03, 2026 Non-Final Rejection is acknowledged. Claims 12-22 are pending, claim 12 is independent. Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Specifically, “is disclosed” is language that can be implied.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities: “claim 12 wherein”, should read “claim 12, wherein” Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-22 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 claim 12, it is rejected for being indefinite for the following reasons:
Lines 1-2, it is indefinite how “a respective surface structure” can be on an upper and a lower side of the steel sheet (particularly as later in the claim they are noted to have different characteristics on the respective sides). Examiner suggests changing this to “respective surface structures”
Lines 6-7 recites "the arithmetic roughness average”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 13-16 and 19-22, these claims are rejected for their incorporation of the above, due to their respective dependencies on claim 12.
Regarding claim 17,
it is indefinite how “outer side” and “inner side” relate to “upper” and lower” sides of claim 12, are they additional sides (i.e. sides 3 and 4) or do they somehow duplicate/refer to the original sides of claim 12. It appears they are meant to refer to the original sides of claim 12 as the characteristic values of the structure are again referred to.
Additionally, it is rejected for its incorporation of the above due to dependence on claim 12.
Regarding claim 18, it is indefinite what an “outer skin part” is, this is not a term of art and the specification provides no definition. For purposes of examination, any component on or with an outer part of anything to any degree will be considered to meet this limitation. Further, claim 18 is rejected for its incorporation of the above due to its dependence on claim 12..
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art to the instant claims is Blumenau et al. (US 2017/0306430 A1), hereinafter Blumenau. Blumenau teaches a flat steel product that is temper rolled ([0045]-[0047]), that may be a steel sheet ([0003]) where at least one surface has an Ra of 0.8-1.6 micron and a peak count RPc of at least 75/cm (Abstract; [0045]) Blumenau teaches Ra and RPc are typically established by temper rolling ([0008]), one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably understands that therefore the opposite surface that is not temper rolled has a significantly different Ra and RPc. As Blumenau teaches where one surface has particular Ra and Rpc, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably understands the other surface has a different structure with different Ra and Rpc values.
Regarding “upper” and “lower” these are relative terms considered by the examiner to give structural definition of “opposite” surfaces as they can be adjusted by merely flipping the steel sheet over for examination. The prior art has opposing sides with different structures and is therefore considered to read on the claimed “upper” and “lower” surfaces of the claim.
The claimed maximum relative deviation of Ra and Rpc are obvious as differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical (MPEP 2144.04 II A) and no evidence of criticality has been provided. The motivation to adjust these values (and subsequently their deviations) is to satisfy customer demands for formability and surface impression that are controlled by Ra and Rpc ([0006]), and allow painting with optimized paint gloss on the surface with the roughness and Rpc ([0045]). Blumenau further teaches flat steel product that is temper rolled ([0045]-[0047]), that may be a steel sheet ([0003]) where at least one surface has an Ra of 0.8-1.6 micron and a peak count RPc of at least 75/cm (Abstract; [0045]) Blumenau teaches Ra and RPc are typically established by temper rolling ([0008]), one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably understands that therefore the surface that is not temper rolled has a significantly different Ra and RPc. As Blumenau teaches where one surface has particular Ra and Rpc, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably understands the other surface has a different structure with different Ra and Rpc values.
Regarding the outer side has a higher or lower values in comparison with the inner side in respect to Ra and Rpc, this is considered obvious, as differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical (MPEP 2144.04 II A) and no evidence of criticality has been provided. The motivation to adjust these values (and subsequently their deviations) is to satisfy customer demands for formability and surface impression that are controlled by Ra and Rpc ([0006]), and allow painting with optimized paint gloss on the surface with the roughness and Rpc ([0045]).
It is of no moment which side is the “inner” and which is the “outer” as they are relative terms that can be determined alternately by the location of the observer. Further, there is motivation to reverse parts in MPEP 2144.04 VI B, “mere reversal ….was held to be an obvious modification”. Therefore, the prior art of Blumenau reads on these claims, regardless of the orientation of the flat steel product when considered.
Blumenau does not teach or suggest, alone or in combination with the prior art, three or more characteristic values.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments and arguments filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive where the rejections for claims 12-17 and 19-20 have been addressed. The rejections maintained above were not addressed by applicant (by amendment or Remark). Examiner notes applicants’ definitions from their specification in the Remarks for “material ratio (T)”, “void volume (L)” and “a maximum relative deviation in comparison with one another”.
Applicants’ argument to claim 18 for “outer skin part” (35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection) is not persuasive as [0048] is not in the specification as filed.
Applicants’ amendments and related arguments, filed June 24, 2026, with respect to objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of April 03, 2026 has been withdrawn. In light of the amendment to the specification, a new objection is made above.
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
Prosecution Insights