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 § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maki et al. (8,986,849).
Maki et al. teaches an automobile comprising at least one outer skin part made of coated press hardened steel having a coating and a base steel. The coating, before heating and press hardening, contains 8-12% of Silicon, up to 3% Iron, unavoidable impurities up to 0.1%, and a balance being Aluminum, by weight, as disclosed on lines 46-59 of column 2 and 34-45 of column 17. The coating has a thickness from 10 to 20 µm per side, see examples 1-4 as disclosed in Table 5 in column 22.
In reference to claim 9, the at least one semi-visible part is chosen from the group consisting of: A-pillar, B-pillar, C-pillar, as disclosed on line 30 of column 1.
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 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki et al. (8,986,849) in view of Mataigne et al. (US 2015/0292072).
Maki et al. does not disclose the waviness.
Mataigne et al. teaches forming a part with a waviness less than or equal to 0.37µm, as disclosed in paragraph [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the part of Maki et al. with a waviness below 0.35 µm, as taught by Mataigne et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to improve surface appearance and prevent the penalty of “orange peel” aspect.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki et al. (8,986,849) in view of Murakami et al. (2015/0007911).
Maki et al. does not disclose the claimed microstructure.
Murakami et al. teaches forming an automobile component with a microstructure after press hardening of at least 95% martensite, as disclosed in paragraphs [0064] and [0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the microstructure of the at least one semi-visible part of Maki et al. after press hardening comprising of at least 95% martensite, as taught by Murakami et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to produce a part that is of high strength and rich in ductility.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki et al. (8,986,849) in view of Murakami et al. (2015/0013856).
Maki et al. does not disclose the claimed microstructure.
Murakami et al. teaches forming an automobile component with a microstructure after press hardening of at least 50% martensite and less than 40% of bainite, as disclosed as #13 of Table 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the microstructure of the at least one semi-visible part of Maki et al. after press hardening comprising of at least 50% martensite and less than 40% of bainite, as taught by Murakami et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to produce a part that is of high strength and rich in ductility.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki et al. (8,986,849) in view of CA 3022671.
Maki et al. does not disclose the claimed microstructure.
CA 3022671 discloses forming the microstructure of a steel automotive vehicle structure after press hardening comprising 5 to 20% martensite, up to 10% bainite, and at least 75% equiaxed ferrite, as disclosed on lines 27-30 of page 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the microstructure of the at least one semi-visible part of Maki et al. after press hardening comprising 5 to 20% martensite, up to 10% bainite, and at least 75% equiaxed ferrite, as taught by CA 3022671, with a reasonable expectation for success to produce a part that is lightweight and high strength, yet has good drawability during manufacturing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Singh (US 2019/0106155) discloses another pillar structure with a microstructure of ferrite, bainite, and martensite.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP whose telephone number is (571)272-6656. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:30.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
GREGORY A. BLANKENSHIP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3612
/GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 September 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights