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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 14 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/25/2025.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In reference to claim 1, in line 2, it is suggested to amend “a steel sheet” to “the steel sheet”, in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 4, in line 5 after “layers,” and before “one” it is suggested to insert “the”, in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 5, in line 2 after “layers,” and before “one” it is suggested to insert “the”, in order to ensure proper antecedent basis and consistency in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (WO 2022/163073) (Kawamura).
It is noted that when utilizing WO 2022/163073, the disclosures of the reference are based on US 2024/0141504 which is an English language equivalent of the reference. Therefore, the paragraphs cited with respect to WO 2022/163073 are found in US 2024/0141504.
In reference to claims 1 and 4-5, Kawamura teaches a steel sheet for cans ([0002]) (corresponding to a steel sheet for cans). The steel sheet comprises on a surface of the steel sheet, a chromium metal layer and a hydrated chromium oxide layer stacked in this order from a steel sheet side ([0009]) (corresponding to on a surface of a steel sheet, two or more coating layers; one of the two or more coating layers, one layer adjacent to the steel sheet is a chromium metal layer, and of the two or more coating layers, one layer adjacent to the chromium-containing layer is a metal layer or a metal oxide layer; the one layer adjacent to the chromium-containing layer is the metal oxide layer, and the metal oxide layer is a chromium oxide layer). The chromium metal layer includes a base portion of flat plate shape and granular protrusions (i.e., core-shell particles) provided on the base portion ([0011]).
Kawamura further teaches the steel sheet is subjected to cathodic electrolysis treatment C1, anodic electrolysis treatment A1, cathodic electrolysis treatment C2 and cathodic treatment C3 ([0020]; [0107]-[0120]; [0154]-[0155]). The cathodic electrolysis treatment C1 is carried out to deposit chromium metal and a hydrated chromium oxide, the electric quantity density in the treatment is not less than 15 C/dm2 and not more than 50 C/dm2 ([0107]-[0108]). The current density and the current time in the cathodic electrolysis treatment C1 are appropriately set based on the electric quantity density ([0109]). The anodic electrolysis treatment A1 dissolves the chromium metal deposited in the cathodic electrolysis treatment C1 to form generation sites of the granular protrusions of the chromium metal layer to be generated in the cathodic electrolysis treatment C2 ([0111]). The electric quantity density in the anodic electrolysis treatment A1 is not less than 0.1 C/dm2 and less than 5.0 C/dm2 ([0113]). The current density and the current time in the anodic electrolysis treatment A1 are appropriately set based on the electric quantity density ([0114]). The cathodic electrolysis treatment C2 allows the granular protrusions of the chromium metal layer to be generated at the foregoing generation sites serving as starting points ([0116]). The current density of the cathodic electrolysis treatment C2 is less than 60.0 A/dm2 and not less than 10 A/dm2 and the electric quantity density is less than 30.0 C/dm2 and not less than 1.0 C/dm2 ([0117]-[0118]). Following the cathodic electrolysis treatment C2, the steel sheet is subject to the cathodic electrolysis treatment C3 ([0155]). The cathodic electrolysis treatment C3 allows chromium metal and a hydrate chromium oxide to be deposited and angulates the granular protrusions ([0146]). The current density of the cathodic electrolysis treatment C3 is more than 15.0 A/dm2 and not more than 80 A/dm2, the electric quantity density is not less than 3.5 C/dm2 and not more than 35 C/dm2 ([0147]-[0150]).
The instant application’s Specification discloses a method of manufacturing the steel sheet including a primary cathodic electrolysis treatment carried preformed with an electric quantity density to achieve the appropriate amount of chromium metal and chromium oxide deposition is 5.0 C/dm2 or more and 40.0 C/dm2 or less, the current density and the current time in the primary cathodic electrolysis treatment are appropriately set based on the electric quantity density ([0060]). The primary cathodic electrolysis treatment is followed by an anodic electrolysis treatment to form deposition sites, the electric quantity density is 0.1 C/dm2 or more and 5.0 C/dm2 or less, the current density and the current time in the anodic electrolysis treatment are appropriately set based on the electric quantity density ([0061]). The deposition sites formed in the anodic electrolysis treatment are thinly covered with chromium oxide ([0062]). A secondary cathodic electrolysis treatment is preformed after the anodic electrolysis treatment, the current density of the secondary cathodic electrolysis treatment is 15 A/dm2 or less and 1 A/dm2 or more and the electric quantity density is 5.0 C/dm2 or more and 0.5 C/dm2 or less ([0063]). Lastly, a tertiary cathodic electrolysis treatment is performed. The current density is 20 A/dm2 or more and 250 A/dm2 or less and the electric quantity density is 10.0 C/dm2 or more and 100 C/dm2 or less ([0068]-[0069]).
Kawamura teaches current densities and/or electric quantity densities overlapping the current densities and/or electric quantity densities disclosed by the instant application to produce the chromium-containing layer stacked on the chromium oxide layer. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
When within the overlapping portion of the electric quantity densities and/or current densities for the cathodic electrolysis treatment C1, anodic electrolysis treatment A1, cathodic electrolysis treatment C2 and cathodic electrolysis treatment C3, it is clear Kawamura teaches a substantially identical method as that disclosed by the instant application.
Given that the steel sheet of Kawamura is substantially identical to the present claimed steel sheet in composition, structure and made by a substantially identical method, as discussed above, the steel sheet of Kawamura would inherently have the chromium-containing layer including a plurality of core-sheet particles, wherein each of the plurality of core-shell particles has a core of chromium metal or a chromium compound and a shell of chromium oxide covering the core.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
In reference to claims 2 and 3, Kawamura teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Given that the steel sheet of Kawamura is substantially identical to the present claimed steel sheet in composition, structure and made by a substantially identical method (i.e., steps C2 and C3), as discussed above, the granular protrusions of Kawamura would inherently be in non-contact with the chromium metal layer and a chromium oxide layer would be present between the granular protrusions and the chromium metal layer.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
In reference to claim 6, Kawamura teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Kawamura teaches the steel sheet has a chromium metal layer and a hydrated chromium oxide layer ([0009]; [0107]-[0114]) (corresponding to the two or more coating layers are two layers).
In reference to claim 7, Kawamura teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Given that the steel sheet of Kawamura is substantially identical to the present claimed steel sheet in composition, structure and made by a substantially identical method (i.e., steps A1, C2 and C3), as discussed above, the granular protrusions of Kawamura would inherently be formed of chromium metal.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
In reference to claim 8, Kawamura teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Kawamura further teaches the coating weight of the chromium metal layer is not less than 50 mg/m2 and not more than 200 mg/m2 ([0039]-[0041]) (corresponding to a coating weight of chromium metal is 50 to 200 mg/m2).
In reference to claims 9-10 and 12-13, Kawamura teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Kawamura further teaches the maximum grain size of the granular protrusions is not less than 10 nm and not more than 200 nm ([0067]-[0068]) (corresponding to a grain size of the core is 100 to 500 nm). A number density of the granular protrusions is not less than 10 and not more than 10,000 protrusions/µm2 ([0071]) (corresponding to a number density of the plurality of core-shell particles is 1 particle/µm2 or more).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Given that the steel sheet of Kawamura is substantially identical to the present claimed steel sheet in composition and made by a substantially identical method, as discussed above, the granulated particles of Kawamura would inherently have an area fraction of 10% or more, a thickness of the chromium oxide is 1/3 or less the grain size of the granulated particle and between 0.5 to 10.0 nm, the granulated particle is a single crystal and the chromium oxide is amorphous.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
In reference to claim 11, Kawamura teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. FIG. 3, provided below, shows the angular granular protrusions for working example 3 ([0032]). FIG. 3 shows the granular protrusions are square in shape (i.e., aspect ratio 1:1) (corresponding to an aspect ratio of each of the plurality of core-shell particles is 2.0 or less). Additionally, the aspect
PNG
media_image1.png
717
1210
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ratio of the granular protrusions can be calculated from FIG. 3 and found to be 1.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (TW 202009136) (Nakagawa).
It is noted that when utilizing TW 202009136, the disclosures of the reference are based on US 2021/0324532 which is an English language equivalent of the reference. Therefore, the paragraphs cited with respect to TW 202009136are found in US 2021/0324532.
In reference to claims 1 and 4-5, Nakagawa teaches a steel sheet for can making ([0015]) (corresponding to a steel sheet for cans). The steel sheet includes an iron-nickel diffusion layer, a metallic chromium layer, and a chromium oxide layer on at least one surface of the steel sheet in order from the steel sheet side ([0015]) (corresponding to on a surface of a steel sheet, two or more coating layers…stacked in this order from a steel sheet side; of the two or more coating layers, one layer adjacent the steel sheet is a chromium metal layer, and of the two or more coating layers, one layer adjacent the chromium-containing layer is a metal layer or a metal oxide layer; of the two or more coating layer, one layer adjacent to the chromium-containing layer is the metal oxide layer, and the metal oxide layer is a chromium oxide layer). The metallic chromium layer includes a granular metallic chromium sublayer ([0015]) (corresponding to a chromium-containing layer; the chromium-containing layer has a plurality of core-shell particles).
Nakagawa further teaches the metallic chromium layer and the chromium oxide layer are formed in such a manner that the steel sheet is subjected to anterior cathodic electrolytic treatment using an aqueous solution containing the hexavalent chromium compound, the fluorine-containing compound, and sulfuric acid or the sulfate; is subsequently subjected to the anodic electrolytic treatment under predetermined conditions; and is further subsequently subjected to the posterior cathodic electrolytic treatment under predetermined conditions ([0066]). After the posterior cathodic electrolytic treatment the steel sheet is subjected to a second electrolytic treatment ([0102]). The second electrolytic treatment is a cathodic electrolytic treatment (Table 1-2).
The anterior cathodic electrolytic treatment precipitates the metallic chromium layer and the chromium oxide layer ([0086]). The charge density of the anterior cathodic electrolytic treatment is 20 C/dm2 to 50 C/dm2 and the current density and the energization time are appropriately set from the above charge density ([0086]-[0088]). The anodic electrolytic treatment dissolves the metallic chromium layer precipitated in the anterior cathodic electrolytic treatment to from generation sites of the granular protrusions ([0091]). The charge density in the anodic electrolytic treatment is more than 3.3 C/dm2 to less than 5.0 C/dm2 and the current density and the energization time are appropriately set from the above charge density ([0093]-[0094]). The posterior cathodic electrolytic treatment can from granular protrusions at the generation sites ([0097]). The current density in the posterior cathodic electrolytic treatment is less than 60.0 A.dm2 and 10.0 A/dm2 or more and the charge density if less than 30.0 C/dm2 and 1.0 C/dm2 or more ([0098]-[0099]). After the posterior cathodic electrolytic treatment the second electrolytic treatment is performed, the second electrolytic treatment consists of a cathodic electrolytic treatment which controls the amount of the chromium oxide layer and modifying the chromium oxide layer ([0102]).
The instant application’s Specification discloses a method of manufacturing the steel sheet including a primary cathodic electrolysis treatment carried preformed with an electric quantity density to achieve the appropriate amount of chromium metal and chromium oxide deposition is 5.0 C/dm2 or more and 40.0 C/dm2 or less, the current density and the current time in the primary cathodic electrolysis treatment are appropriately set based on the electric quantity density ([0060]). The primary cathodic electrolysis treatment is followed by an anodic electrolysis treatment to form deposition sites, the electric quantity density is 0.1 C/dm2 or more and 5.0 C/dm2 or less, the current density and the current time in the anodic electrolysis treatment are appropriately set based on the electric quantity density ([0061]). The deposition sites formed in the anodic electrolysis treatment are thinly covered with chromium oxide ([0062]). A secondary cathodic electrolysis treatment is preformed after the anodic electrolysis treatment, the current density of the secondary cathodic electrolysis treatment is 15 A/dm2 or less and 1 A/dm2 or more and the electric quantity density is 5.0 C/dm2 or more and 0.5 C/dm2 or less ([0063]). Lastly, a tertiary cathodic electrolysis treatment is performed. The current density is 20 A/dm2 or more and 250 A/dm2 or less and the electric quantity density is 10.0 C/dm2 or more and 100 C/dm2 or less ([0068]-[0069]).
Nakagawa teaches current densities and/or electric quantity densities overlapping the current densities and/or electric quantity densities disclosed by the instant application to produce the chromium-containing layer stacked on the chromium oxide layer. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
When within the overlapping portion of the electric quantity densities and/or current densities for the anterior cathodic electrolysis treatment, anodic electrolysis treatment, posterior cathodic electrolysis treatment and cathodic electrolysis treatment of the second electrolytic treatment, it is clear Nakagawa teaches a substantially identical method as that disclosed by the instant application.
Given that the steel sheet of Nakagawa is substantially identical to the present claimed steel sheet in composition, structure and made by a substantially identical method, as discussed above, the steel sheet of Nakagawa would inherently have the chromium-containing layer including a plurality of core-sheet particles, wherein each of the plurality of core-shell particles has a core of chromium metal or a chromium compound and a shell of chromium oxide covering the core.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
In reference to claims 2-3, Nakagawa teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Given that the steel sheet of Nakagawa is substantially identical to the present claimed steel sheet in composition, structure and made by a substantially identical method (i.e., posterior cathodic electrolytic treatment and second electrolytic treatment), as discussed above, the granular protrusions of Nakagawa would inherently be in non-contact with the chromium metal layer and a chromium oxide layer would be present between the granular protrusions and the chromium metal layer.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
In reference to claim 6, Nakagawa teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Nakagawa teaches the anterior cathodic electrolytic treatment deposits a metallic chromium layer and chromium oxide layer ([0087]) (corresponding to the two or more coating layers are two layers).
In reference to claim 7, Nakagawa teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Given that the steel sheet of Nakagawa is substantially identical to the present claimed steel sheet in composition, structure and made by a substantially identical method (i.e., anodic electrolytic treatment, posterior cathodic electrolytic treatment and second electrolytic treatment), as discussed above, the granular protrusions of Nakagawa would inherently be formed of chromium metal.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
In reference to claim 8, Nakagawa teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Nakagawa further teaches the total chromium coating weight of the steel sheet is 60 mg/m2 to 200 mg/m2 ([0015]; claim 1) (corresponding to a coating weight of chromium metal is 50 to 200 mg/m2).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In reference to claims 9-13, Nakagawa teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Nakagawa further teaches the a number density of the granular protrusions per area is 5 µm-2 to 10,000 µm-2 ([0046]-[0048]) (corresponding to a number density of the plurality of core-shell particles is 1 particle/µm2 or more).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Given that the steel sheet of Nakagawa is substantially identical to the present claimed steel sheet in composition and made by a substantially identical method, as discussed above, the granulated particles of Nakagawa would inherently have an area fraction of 10% or more, grain size of the granulated particles is 10 to 500 nm, a thickness of the chromium oxide is 1/3 or less the grain size of the granulated particle and between 0.5 to 10.0 nm, an aspect ratio of the granulated particles if 2.0 or less and the granulated particle is a single crystal and the chromium oxide is amorphous.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary I Omori whose telephone number is (571)270-1203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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.
/MARY I OMORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784