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
Claims 1-8, 11 and 15-17 are allowable. Claims 13, 14 and 18-20, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between inventions Groups I and II, as set forth in the Office action mailed on December 15, 2025, is hereby withdrawn and claims 13, 14 and 18-20 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Status
Applicants’ March 13, 2026 response to the January 22, 2026 Non-Final Rejection is acknowledged. Claims 1-8, 11 and 13-20 are pending, claim 1 is independent. Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Examiner Note
Regarding claim 13, “high-strength steel matrix” is definite in light of claim 2, which defines that the tensile strength of the high-strength steel is at least 780 MPa or at least 980 MPa or at least 1180 MPa. Further, “resistance to spot-welding LME cracks” in the preamble is made definite in the last lines of claim 1, which detail specific limitations of “resistance to spot-welding LME cracks”.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the examiner notes that the individual types of steel in these claims are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art and are therefore definite.
Regarding claim 20, the examiner notes that as presently recited under broadest reasonable interpretation “L” can presently be the tensile strength of the low carbon steel composite layer that has the “A percentage” or the “C percentage” and “N” can presently be the tensile strength of the low carbon steel composite layer that has the “A percentage” or the “C percentage” (which ever is opposite L). If applicant intends for L to match with A and N to match with C, further clarity would be required.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: "Step" is capitalized in three locations where it should be lower case, as is "Plating" in step 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: ". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: "or. 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 13, 14 and 18-20 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 13, it is indefinite what a “blooming process of thick plate” is, further it is indefinite if “a high-strength steel matrix (1) of line 4 is the same “high-strength steel matrix” of claim 1, from which claim 13 depends.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites the limitation "the affixing surfaces" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is further indefinite what limitation “needs to be” polished and cleaned adds to the claim. Possible options include 1) polished and cleaned are steps of the process or 2) dirty and unpolished layers should be stacked (“needing” to be polished and cleaned). Additionally, claim 14 is rejected for its incorporation of the above, due to its dependency on claim 13.
Regarding claim 18, it is indefinite what limitations are optionally required in the claim due to the presence of the “and/or” transition, examiner suggests changing to “or”. Also, it is indefinite what “sensitive” means in line 3, for purposes of examination any high-strength steel shall be considered to some degree “sensitive”. Additionally, claim 18 is rejected for its incorporation of the above, due to its dependency on claim 13.
Regarding claim 19, it is indefinite what “not-sensitive” means in line 3, for purposes of examination any high-strength steel shall be considered to some degree “not-sensitive”. . It is further indefinite what limitations are optionally required in the claim due to the presence of the “and/or” transition, examiner suggests changing to “or”. Additionally, claim 19 is rejected for its incorporation of the above, due to its dependency on claim 13.
Regarding claim 20, it is indefinite what “target tensile strength” means in line 5, second page of claim. It could be a goal tensile strength that is unachievable, it could be the actual tensile strength or something else. Additionally, it is indefinite what “T” refers to, as it is introduced in claim 13 as “tensile strength” (from which claim 20 depends), and claim 20 recites it as “target tensile strength” Further, claim 20 is rejected for its incorporation of the above due to its dependence on claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 11 and 15-17 are allowed.
Claims 13, 14 and 18-20 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance and statement of reasons for allowable subject matter: see indication of allowable subject matter in the Non-Final Reje.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendment and related arguments, see II and III, filed March 13, 2026, with respect to objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of January 22, 2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicants’ amendments and related arguments, see IV, filed March 13, 2026, with respect to January 22, 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of January 22, 2026 have been withdrawn.
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