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 17, 2026 response to the March 17, 2026 Non Final Rejection is acknowledged. Claims 13-26 and 33 are pending, claims 13 and 21 are independent. Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Examiner notes that the withdrawn process claims do not contain all the limitations of an allowable claim and as such are not rejoined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lupp et al. (US-20120085466-A1), hereinafter Lupp in view of Maki et al. (JP 2004238682 A Google Patents machine translation of March 6, 2026), hereinafter Maki (of record).
Regarding claims 21-26, Lupp teaches a steel component ([0014]; [0041]) of a steel flat product (steel substrate) with a metallic coating produced on it ([0016]), where a metallic coating is formed by a base layer lying on the flat steel product, and an intermediate layer lying on the base layer (intermediate layer adjoins a surface of the base layer), wherein the base layer contains at least 30 wt.% Al, at least 20 wt% Fe, at least 3 wt% Si (“Al-based protective coating”) and at most 30 wt% Zn and the intermediate layer contains at least 60 wt% Zn ([0041]), the base steel is for example 22MnB5 steel ([0070]), which is contains 0.5-3% Mn, 0.15-0.5% C and 0.0005-0.08 % B in weight% ([0007]),. Examiner notes the as Mn and Mg are not included in the Al-based coating of the prior art such that they are not considered to be present in an appreciable amount. As they are not listed it is understood to one of ordinary skill in the art that it is reasonable that they are not present. Lupp further teaches the AlSi layer is on top of an alloy barrier layer ([0067]) which supports that there is no diffusion in the AlSi layer specifically. Therefore, assuming 20 wt% Fe in this layer, there Si in an amount of 3.75% or more in the coating and Zn in an amount of 37.5% or less in an Fe-Mn free proportion (further overlapping the total weight of additional alloy constituents claimed). Examiner further notes that as presently recited the composition of the protective coating could be “as applied” and prior to alloying.
Lupp does not teach Mg in the Al-based protective coating of in an Fe and Mn free proportion of 0.10-050% (or 0.1-0.35 weight %). Maki is in a similar field of hot-dip Al-coated steel sheets (Abstract) and teaches Mg in the Al-based plating layer of 0.1-1% by mass (claim 4; with optionally 0% Mn or Fe; i.e. this is the Mn-Fe free amount). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to incorporate Mg in the Al-plating layer of Maki into the plating layer of Lupp. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the corrosion resistance ([0023] Maki), and thereby achieve the desired property of Lupp (“metallic coating protects against corrosion”; Abstract).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20 and 33 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: see allowable subject matter indication in Non Final Rejection of March 17, 2026. Applicant has incorporated “the Al-based protective coating comprises a low silicon phase (A) and a silicon-rich phase (R), where the silicon-rich phase has an insular distribution in the low-silicon phase” noted as allowable into the independent claim.
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’ amendments arguments, see Pgs. 7-9, filed June 17, 2026, with respect to rejections of claims 13-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 13-20 of March 17, 2026 has been withdrawn. Specifically, the incorporation of allowable subject matter into the independent claim overcomes the obviousness rejections of record.
Applicants’ amendment and arguments, see Pg. 9, filed June 17, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view Lupp in view of Maki, as rejected 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