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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Honda JP 3600804B2. Honda teaches hot-dip galvanized steel sheet (paragraph 48) wherein plating has 0.5 wt. % Al, 0.5 wt. % Mg, and 0% Si and I(002)/I(101) ratio of 10 (Example 7; Table 4). This example teaches features of Claims 2-6. Honda explains that I(002) corresponds to d spacing of ca. 2.5 angstroms and I(101) corresponds to d spacing of ca. 2.1 angstroms. The Specification associates I(002) with two theta of ca. 36.2 degrees using copper x-ray tube and I(101) with two theta of ca. 43.2 degrees using copper x-ray tube (wavelength of 1.54 angstroms). See Specification (paragraph 29). These two theta values at this wavelength correspond to d-spacings of Honda, and so the eta phase requirement is taught by Honda. Regarding the amount of Fe in the plating layer, the Specification explains that it would be expected to be at least at the lower threshold level. See Specification (paragraph 18). As well, Specification teaches that eta phase has minimal Fe amount. See Specification (paragraph 13). Honda teaches that the desired coatings in Honda desirably achieve eta phase since Honda refers to zinc crystals of the coating favorably exhibiting (002) plane orientation, which is eta phase crystal (paragraphs 6 and 20). Honda does not mention amount of Fe in plating layer, but does report plating composition and does not mention any Fe being present. In view of applicant’s explanation that a minimal amount of Fe would be expected and in view of Honda’s reported compositions, these teachings are understood to mean that such minimal amount or slightly more may be present, but not amounts comparable to amounts of Al or Mg which are elements for which amounts are reported. As well, Honda does teach that FeAl layer is present and that minimizing FeAl layer is desired (paragraph 14), which presence applicant associates with Fe presence in the plating layer. See Specification (paragraph 18). Honda teaches that minimizing Fe-Al is achieved by regulating amount of Al (paragraph 9). In view of the recognition in Honda that the coating is eta phase dominant, which implies little Fe being present, that no Fe is reported as being present, that Honda selects the amounts of Al to provide minimal FeAl layer, it would be expected that there would at least be the lower threshold amount of Fe and not more than the upper threshold amount since such upper threshold amount would imply less eta phase and more intermetallic than the minimal levels sought in Honda. Thus, it would be expected that the claimed amounts of Fe are the same as or substantially the same as those in Honda.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda JP 3600804B2. Honda teaches hot-dip galvanized steel sheet (paragraph 48) wherein plating has 0.5 wt. % Al, 0.5 wt. % Mg, 0% Si, and I(002)/I(101) ratio of 10 (Example 7; Table 4). This example teaches features of Claims 2-6. Honda explains that I(002) corresponds to d spacing of ca. 2.5 angstroms and I(101) corresponds to d spacing of ca. 2.1 angstroms. The Specification associates I(002) with two theta of ca. 36.2 degrees using copper x-ray tube and I(101) with two theta of ca. 43.2 degrees using copper x-ray tube (wavelength of 1.54 angstroms). See Specification (paragraph 29). These two theta values at this wavelength correspond to d-spacings of Honda, and so the eta phase requirement is taught by Honda. Regarding the amount of Fe in the plating layer, the Specification explains that it would be expected to be at least at the lower threshold level. See Specification (paragraph 18). As well, Specification teaches that eta phase has minimal Fe amount. See Specification (paragraph 13). Honda teaches that the desired coatings in Honda desirably achieve eta phase since Honda refers to zinc crystals of the coating favorably exhibiting (002) plane orientation (paragraphs 6 and 20). Honda does not mention amount of Fe in plating layer, but does report plating composition and does not mention any Fe being present. In view of applicant’s explanation that a minimal amount of Fe would be expected and in view of Honda’s reported compositions, these teachings are understood to mean that such minimal amount or slightly more may be present, but not amounts comparable to amounts of Al or Mg which are elements for which amounts are reported. As well, Honda does teach that FeAl layer is present and that minimizing FeAl layer is desired (paragraph 14), which presence applicant associates with Fe presence in the plating layer. See Specification (paragraph 18). Honda teaches that minimizing Fe-Al is achieved by regulating amount of Al (paragraph 9). In view of the recognition in Honda that the coating is eta phase dominant, which implies little Fe being present, that no Fe is reported as being present, that Honda selects the amounts of Al to provide minimal FeAl layer, it would be expected that there would at least be the lower threshold amount of Fe and not more than the upper threshold amount since such upper threshold amount would imply less eta phase and more intermetallic than the minimal levels sought in Honda. Nevertheless, Honda does not expressly teach the amount of Fe in the plating layer. In view of the recognition in Honda that Honda selects the amounts of Al to provide minimal FeAl intermetallic layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to vary the amount of Fe in the plating layer by regulating and minimizing the intermetallic FeAl layer thickness by regulating amount of Al. Honda teaches that when, there is more than 0.05 wt. % Al and up to 10 wt. % Al (paragraph 9), satisfactory coatings with regard to FeAl layer can be obtained. Thus, at the lower end of the range of Al in Honda, when FeAl layer is first possible to be formed due to amount of Al and for which the claimed amount of 0.10 wt. % Al is included, only minimal amount of Fe would be expected in the coating such that it equals or exceeds the claimed minimum amount, since applicant associates unavoidable presence of FeAl layer with lower threshold amount of 0.01 wt. % Fe (Specification, at paragraph 18), but would be far less than the upper amount of 2.00 wt. % Fe since FeAl layer presence is only first possible with amount of relatively low amount of Al being present. The effective range of Al in Honda is wide. For greater amounts of Al in the range suggested in Honda, there would be expected to be more FeAl layer and thus more Fe in the plating layer. Thus, for the range of Al in Honda that overlaps that claimed, there would be expected to be a range of Fe in the plating layer from an amount close to the minimum amount claimed to greater amounts including greater amounts in the range to 2.00 wt. % Fe.
Response to Amendment
In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, applicant traverses the section 102/103 rejection over Honda of the Office Action mailed on 8 September 2025. In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, applicant traverses the section 103 rejection over Honda of the Office Action mailed on 8 September 2025.
Applicant argues that I(002)/I(101) being in claimed range is not obtained in relied upon examples. The revised rejections point to an example having ratio of 10, which is in the claimed range. Applicant points out that Honda fails to expressly teach claimed Fe amounts, which the rejections acknowledge. Applicant only specifically traverses one of the reasons for teaching or rendering obvious the claimed Fe amount, arguing that there is no motivation to achieve claimed Fe amount. However, as the rejection explains, this feature would be expected to be inherently achieved due to the motivation to vary the amount of Al, which Honda explains can vary over a wide range. So, applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Moreover, applicant has failed to rebut the other reasons for expecting claimed amount of Fe to be inherently present in Honda. Rejections are maintained as revised.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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.
Regarding Claim 7, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest the subject matter of this claim. Particularly, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest claimed I(002)/I(101) being in range of 20 to 1000, in the claimed context. For example, Honda JP 3600804B2 teaches or suggest all of the other claimed features for the reasons set forth above in the section 102/103 rejection over Honda. However, Honda’s examples have a maximum value of this ratio being 10, which is far less than claimed minimum value of 20. So, Honda fails to teach this feature and offers no specific motivation or expectation of success for it to be as much as 20. See Honda (entire document).
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 MICHAEL E. LA VILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1539. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. from 9:00 a.m. ET to 5:30 p.m. ET.
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 N. 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.
/MICHAEL E. LA VILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
11 March 2026