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 July 08, 2026 response to the April 08, 2026 Non-Final Rejection is acknowledged. Claims 1-5 are pending; claim 1 is independent. Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al. (US-20240117517-A1), hereinafter Yamamoto (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a Si containing steel sheet ([0012]) where an example of the raw data of an intensity profile of emission intensity of Si using glow discharge optical emission spectrometry are shown in Fig. 2A ([0031]). Fig. 2A first portion shows two valleys with intensity of ~ 0.05 at the surface of the steel substrate (line between Fe plating and steel substrate) and a value of ~0.11 intensity at 3 micron depth (3 microns from the 2 microns where the steel substrate starts is 1 micron depth of the steel sheet, considered to be the parent material Si concentration), see annotated Fig. 2A below, valleys noted with arrows; 0.05 noted with line across.
Examiner notes that 0.05/0.11 is ~45%. These approximate values anticipate the claimed range with sufficient specificity per MPEP § 2131.03 as they calculate to values well within the claimed ratios.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
538
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US-20240117517-A1), hereinafter Yamamoto (of record).
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above and further teaches the steel comprises a composition as shown in the below Table in mass percent ([0012]-[0018]).
Table
Instant claim 4
Yamamoto [0012]-[0018]
C
0.02-0.6
≤ 0.8
Si
0.001—2
0.1-3.0
Al
0.001-1
< 1.0
Mn
0.1-4
1.0-12.0
P
≤ 0.05
≤ 0.1
S
≤ 0.02
≤ 0.03
Cr
≤ 1
≤ 1.0
N
≤ 0.02
≤ 0.010
Ti
≤ 0.1
≤ 0.2
B
0.0001-0.01
≤ 0.005
Cu
≤ 1.00
≤ 1.0
Mo
≤ 1.00
≤ 1.0
Cr
≤ 1.00
≤ 1.0
Ni
≤ 1.00
≤ 1.0
V
≤ 1.00
≤ 0.5
Ca
≤ 0.01
≤ 0.005
Nb
≤ 0.1
≤ 0.20
Sn
≤ 1
≤ 0.20
W
≤ 1
≤ 0.5
Sb
≤ 1
≤ 0.020
Mg
≤ 0.1
≤ 0.005
Co
≤ 1
As
≤ 1
Zr
≤ 1
≤ 0.1
Bi
≤ 1
REM
≤ 0.3
≤ 0.005
Fe & unavoidable impurities
remainder
balance
Regarding As, Co, and Bi in the steel, Yamamoto is silent to the presence of these elements in the steel, such that they are not considered to be present in an appreciable amount, also note examples. If these elements are not listed it is understood to one of ordinary skill in the art that it is reasonable that they are not present. Therefore the elements are considered to be present in an amount within, or at least overlapping, applicant’s claimed proportions (which include 0%).
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.
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above and further teaches the part made from the steel sheet includes a hot-dip galvanized steel sheet (galvanized layer formed on a surface; [0146]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art to the instant claims is Yamamoto as applied to claim 1 above. Yamamoto does not teach or suggest, alone or in combination with the prior art the one or two of Mn and Si included in a grain boundary or a grain within 1 micron in the depth direction from the surface are 40% or more of an amount of each of the components in the parent material; nor the steel sheet comprises an oxide formed of one or two or more of Mn, Si, Al, Cr and B is included within 10 microns from the surface in the depth direction. Further, Yamamoto teaches a different thickness of the coating than that of applicant; therefore the characteristics would not necessarily be inherent.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendment and related arguments, see Pg. 6, filed July 08, 2026, with respect to objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of April 08, 2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 6-8, filed July 08, 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of April 08, 2026 has been withdrawn. Specifically, that [0089] teaches and the figures show a definition of “valley” and that “parent material” is intended to be defined as [0050]).
Applicant’s arguments, filed July 08, 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 1 in view of Soo have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in view of Soo rejections of April 08, 2026 have been withdrawn. Specifically, Soo does not teach a substantially identical product to that of applicant; therefore the profile claimed is not inherent.
Applicant's arguments filed July 08, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding the rejections in view of Yamamoto. Inherency is never relied upon for Yamamoto, therefore, these arguments are not persuasive. The blanket statement that Yamamoto does not teach the claimed valleys is not persuasive absent specific details not provided; as it is rejected as anticipated 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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