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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim refers to “chemical composition containing . . . with the balance consisting of Fe and inevitable impurities”. Is it unclear whether the specified composition is therefore open or closed to additional ingredients in view of possibly contradicting “containing” and “consisting of”.
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what is required by “optionally at least one selected from”. It is also unclear how to understand “optionally” in view of possibly “0”. In view of “optionally”, is there any restriction whatsoever on the amounts of these elements in the composition? In other words, while Cu is optionally from 0 to 0.20 %, could it also not be in that range? If no Cu is present, in that it is optionally in the claimed range, is there any restriction on the others? For example, if Ni is present in this circumstance, could it be present in the specified range or outside of the specified range? Must it be present in the specified range? The plain meaning of the claim should encompass what coverage is desired.
Regarding Claims 14-16, each of these claims requires a layer under the metallic Cr layer that is to be formed in previous Claim 13. Previous Claim 13 requires that the “steel sheet” be subjected to cathodic electrolysis treatment, which, by reference to Claim 1, is an uncoated “steel sheet”. Thus, it is unclear how there can be these underlayers required in these claims while at the same time the overlayers of metallic Cr and Cr oxide layers are to be formed by subjecting the steel sheet to electrolysis.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has filed a Declaration by Yusuke Nakagawa, which Declaration has been considered. Declarant provides reasons to doubt the necessary expectation of contact angle of ethylene glycol on a surface being less than 50 degrees when the contact angle of water on a surface is less than 50 degrees.
In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, applicant traverses the NSDP rejection over USPN 12,195,858 of the Office Action mailed on 18 December 2025. Rejection is withdrawn.
In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, applicant traverses the NSDP rejection over USPN 12,195,868 of the Office Action mailed on 18 December 2025. Rejection is withdrawn.
In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, applicant traverses the NSDP rejection over Serial No. 18/846,825 of the Office Action mailed on 18 December 2025. Rejection is withdrawn.
In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, applicant traverses the section 112, paragraph (b) rejection of the Office Action mailed on 18 December 2025. Rejection is withdrawn.
In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, applicant traverses the section 102/103 rejection over Zetterholm, the section 103 rejection over Zetterholm, and the section 103 rejection over Zetterholm in view of Higuchi of the Office Action mailed on 18 December 2025. Rejections are withdrawn.
Claim 1 is directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), claims 13-16, directed to the process of making or using an allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 11 September 2025 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claims 1-16, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest the subject matter of these claimed articles and methods. Particularly, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest steel sheet of the claimed composition having the claimed metallic Cr layer and Cr oxide layer having the claimed contact angle and the claimed atomic ratio property in the claimed context, for these claimed articles and claimed methods. For example, Zetterholm WO 2007/129979 teaches: A surface-treated steel sheet comprising: a steel sheet [Example 1- strip of AISI 1095 steel (a strip is a sheet)]; a metallic Cr layer disposed on at least one surface of the steel sheet [Example 1 - 0.2 µm Cr coating]; and a Cr oxide layer disposed on the metallic Cr layer [Example 1 - the formation of a native Cr oxide is implicit for Cr coatings], wherein there is a contact angle of ethylene glycol of 50° or less [Example 1, Table 3 - 21° Contact angle in ethylene glycol] and a total atomic ratio of K, Na, Mg, and Ca adsorbed on a surface to Cr of 5.0 % or less. [Example 1, page 12, lines 1-20 - coating is performed by electron beam evaporation; it is implicit for coating deposition by electron beam evaporation that K, Na, Mg, and Ca are absent from the surface.]. However, Zetterholm fails to teach or suggest the claimed steel composition in combination with these features for the reasons persuasively argued applicant in the Response filed on 24 March 2026 (page 11). See Zetterholm (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
3 June 2026
Prosecution Insights