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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 7/31/2026 is acknowledged.
Examiner’s Comment
Claim 1 recites “the proportion of the wax” in line 9. It appears that the claim should recite “a proportion of the wax” in line 9.
Claim 2 recites “the proportion of the organic resin” in line 2. It appears that the claim should recite “a proportion of the organic resin” in line 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanai et al. (JP08-192102, see machine translated version) in view of Nakamoto et al. (JP2006-043913, see machine translated version).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Kanai et al. teach a coated steel sheet (paragraphs [0004], [0010]) comprising a base steel sheet (paragraph [0010]) and on at least one side of the base steel sheet, a film containing organic resin (paragraphs [0004], [0010]) and wax (paragraph [0008]), wherein the organic resin is at least one selected from the group consisting of acrylic resins, epoxy resins, urethane resins and polyester resins (paragraph [0005]), the wax is polyolefin wax (paragraph [0008]) having a melting point that is 70 to 160°C which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 100°C or more and 145°C or less (paragraph [0008]) and an particle size of 0.1 to 7.0 µm which reads on Applicant’s claimed average particle size that is 3.0 µm or less (paragraph [0008]), the proportion of the wax in the film is 3 to 30% by weight which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 5 mass% or more and 70 mass% or less (paragraph [0008]).
Kanai et al. fail to teach wherein the coating weight µw of the film is 0.3 g/m2 or more. However, Nakamoto et al. teach a coated steel sheet (paragraphs [0011], [0070]) comprising a base steel sheet (paragraph [0070]) and on at least one side of the base steel sheet (paragraph [0070]), a film containing organic resin (paragraph [0011]) and wax (paragraph [0070]), wherein the organic resin is a urethane resin (paragraph [0011]), the wax is a polyolefin wax (paragraph [0070]) and coating weight of the film is 0.05 to 1 g/m2 which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 0.3 g/m2 or more (paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating weight of the film of Kanai et al. to that of Nakamoto et al. in order to maintain appropriate abrasion resistance, corrosion resistance, alkali degreasing resistance, conductivity and weldability (Nakamoto et al., paragraph [0071]).
Kanai et al. and Nakamoto et al. do not disclose wherein coating weight variation defined by Expression (1) is 0.300 or less. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in coating weight variation involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the coating weight variation of Kanai et al., as modified by Nakamoto et al., in order to maintain appropriate abrasion resistance, corrosion resistance, alkali degreasing resistance, conductivity and weldability (Nakamoto et al., paragraph [0071]).
Regarding claim 2, Kanai et al. teach wherein the proportion of the organic resin in the film is 50 to 85% by weight which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 30 mass% or more an 95 mass% or less (paragraph [0004]) and the proportion of the wax in the film is 3 to 30% by weight which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 5 mass% or more and 50 mass% or less (paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Kanai et al. fail to teach wherein the film further contains a dispersant. However, Nakamoto et al. teach a coated steel sheet (paragraphs [0011], [0070]) comprising a base steel sheet (paragraph [0070]) and on at least one side of the base steel sheet (paragraph [0070]), a film containing organic resin (paragraph [0011]) and wax (paragraph [0070]), wherein the organic resin is a urethane resin (paragraph [0011]), the wax is a polyolefin wax (paragraph [0070]) and coating weight of the film is 0.05 to 1 g/m2 (paragraph [0018]), wherein the film further contains a dispersant of carboxylic acid copolymer (paragraphs [0011]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the dispersant of Nakamoto et al. in the film of Kanai et al. in order to achieve effective film strength and corrosion resistance (Nakamoto et al., paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 10, Kanai et al. teach wherein the film further contains silica (paragraphs [0004], [0009]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanai et al. (JP08-192102, see machine translated version) in view of Nakamoto et al. (JP2006-043913, see machine translated version), in further view of Kaneko et al. (US Patent Application No. 2013/0273389).
Kanai et al. and Nakamoto et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 3, Kanai et al. fail to teach wherein arithmetic mean roughness Ra of a surface of the base steel sheet is 0.4 µm or more and 2.5 µm or less. However, Kaneko et al. teach a coated steel sheet comprising a base steel sheet (page 3, paragraph [0038], page 4, paragraph [0062]) comprising a film containing organic resin (page 3, paragraphs [0038], [0042]-[0044]) and wax (page 7, paragraph [0087]), wherein arithmetic mean roughness Ra of a surface of the base steel sheet is 0.5 to 2.0 µm which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 0.4 µm or more and 2.5 µm or less (page 3, paragraph [0038], page 4, paragraphs [0064], [0065]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roughness of the steel sheet of Kanai et al. to that of Kaneko et al. in order to achieve uniform surface appearance and excellent conductivity (Kaneko et al., page 5, paragraph [0067]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanai et al. (JP08-192102, see machine translated version) in view of Nakamoto et al. (JP2006-043913, see machine translated version), in further view of Yamaoka et al. (US Patent Application No. 2004/0033909).
Kanai et al. and Nakamoto et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 5, Kanai et al. fail to teach wherein the organic resin is an alkali soluble resin. However, Yamaoka et al. teach a coated steel sheet comprising a base steel sheet (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 6, paragraph [0049]) and on at least one side of the base steel sheet a film containing organic resin (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 6, paragraph [0049]) and polyolefin wax (page 2, paragraph [0016]), wherein the organic resin is an alkali soluble resin (page 1, paragraph [0006]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an alkali soluble resin as that of Yamaoka et al. as the organic resin of Kanai et al. in order to provide excellent shapability (Yamaoka et al., page 1, paragraph [0005]).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanai et al. (JP08-192102, see machine translated version) in view of Nakamoto et al. (JP2006-043913, see machine translated version), in further view of Ogishi et al. (JP09-239896, see machine translated version).
Kanai et al. and Nakamoto et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Kanai et al. fail to teach wherein the film further contains a rust inhibitor. However, Ogishi et al. teach a coated steel sheet comprising a base steel sheet (paragraph [0014]) and on at least one side of the base steel sheet a film containing organic resin (paragraph [0014]) and polyolefin wax (paragraphs [0014], [0020]), wherein the organic resin is at least one selected from the group consisting of acrylic resins, urethane resin and polyester resins (paragraph [0014]), wherein the film further contains a rust inhibitor (paragraph [0014]), wherein the rust inhibitor is zinc salt (paragraph [0014]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the rust inhibitor of Ogishi et al. in the film or Kanai et al. in order to exhibit rust prevention properties (Ogishi et al., paragraph [0023]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 EST.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 9/3/2026
Prosecution Insights