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 .
Priority
Examiner reiterates that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2022-0067234 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Applicants’ July 29, 2026 response to the April 29, 2026 Non Final Rejection is acknowledged. Claims 1-7 and 14-20 are pending; claims 1 and 14 are independent. Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
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) 1-7and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 2021/0120477A April 17, 2026 Google Patents machine translation) hereinafter Kim, in view of Yoo et al. (US 2021/0147955 A1), hereinafter Yoo. Claims 7 and 16 evidenced by Sunrise (“Aluminum Alloy AlSi12”) (all of record).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 6, 14-15, 17-18 and 20, Kim teaches a hot stamping part including a base steel sheet (Pg. 3 [10]) with a tensile strength of 1000 MPa or more (Pg. 3 [11]) with a dense surface oxide (inner oxide layer) (Pg. 4 [7]), a martensite fraction of 90% or more in the microstructure (Pg. 3 [11]) and a base material in wt% C: 0.10-0.35%, Mn: 1.0-3.0%, B: 0.001-0.005%, Si: 0.01-0.5%, S: >0 to 0.01%, , N, P: >0 to 0.1%, and remining Fe and unavoidable impurities (steel) (claim 1).
Kim does not specifically teach a decarburization layer on the base material with the inner oxide layer on the decarburization layer (a layered structure-claim 20), with hardness meeting Relational Expression 1 or 3 and a depth of the inner oxide layer meeting Relational Expression 2 or 4, nor a VDA bending angle of 60⁰ or more, nor the decarburization layer is softer than the base material with an average hardness of ≤70% of the average hardness at an about ¼ plate thickness of the hot stamping component, nor the base material includes Cr >0 to 0.1wt%, nor the inner oxide layer including Si, Mn and Cr (hereinafter “claimed properties”).
Yoo is in the similar field of endeavor of a hot stamped steel plate including a decarburized layer (Abstract) and teaches including Cr at 0.05-1.00 wt% in the steel (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kim to incorporate the Cr of Yoo. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the hardenability and strength of the steel ([0048]) and thereby achieve the objective hardness and strength, which are desired by Kim (Pg. 3 [11]).
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.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have expected substantially identical material treated in a substantially identical manner as applicants to have substantially identical properties (including the claimed properties).
Applicant teaches the base material is steel ([0084]), of an optional composition “may include’” ([0065]) and Kim in view of Yoo teaches an overlapping base material as cited above.
Applicant teaches forming a blank of a plated steel sheet, heating it in a heating furnace with a plurality of sections with different temperature ranges (multi stage hating step), soaking step of heating from Ac1 to ~910⁰C, annealing at ~750 to 900⁰C at a dew point of ~15 to 15⁰C, further comprising transferring the heated blank, and forming a molded body and then cooling it (claims 8-11). Examiner notes the only parameter shown to be critical in Tables 1 and 2 is the dew point temperature (Tables 1 and 2).
Kim teaches a Taylor rolled blank of a base material of Fe and unavoidable impurities (steel) with an Al-Si based plating layer formed on it (Pg. 3 [17]) that is passed through a multi-stage heating section and then crack treated (annealed), then transferred to a press mold to form a molded body and then cooled (Pg. 5 [1]). Crack treatment is after heating it to 800-1000⁰C (heated then annealed) (Pg. 4 [13]) and the dew point is 0⁰C in the heating furnace (Pg. 5 [3]). Kim further teaches the temperature may be sequentially increased in a direction from inlet to outlet in the different sections (Pg. 3 [5]; different temperature range in sections). Kim teaches processing ranges (previous paragraph) that overlap those taught by applicant; 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).
Given substantially identical materials and processing parameters, (as discussed above), one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have expected the product of the prior art to have substantially identical properties to that of applicant; including the claimed properties, meeting applicant’s claimed requirements.
The examiner has provided a basis in technical reasoning that the processing and compositions are substantially identical in support of the determination that the inherent characteristic of the claimed properties necessarily flows from the teachings of the prior art (MPEP 2112 IV).
As the prior art teaches a substantially identical product, produced by a substantially identical process as that which applicant discloses as producing the claimed properties, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would expect the product of the prior art to possess the claimed limitations, absent an objective showing (MPEP 2112). The PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product, whether the rejection is based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. 102 or prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same (MPEP 2112 V).
Regarding the depth of the decarburization layer is controlled to improve the toughness of the component without increasing the risk of LME during hot forming and the hardness ratio ensures that the hot stamping component maintains toughness and hot formability, reducing surface cracks during forming, the prior art teaches the decarburized layer (necessarily has a depth) and the claimed hardness ratio as rejected above. Therefore, the prior art of record is considered to meet the claimed limitations using BRI as it teaches a substantially identical product and no particular layer size, toughness, hot formability, or surface crack reduction is recited.
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Kim in view of Yoo teaches each limitation of claims 1 and 14, as discussed above and Kim further teaches yield strength of 800 MPa or more and elongation of 5% or more (Pg. 3 [11]). 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 claims 7 and 16, Kim in view of Yoo teaches each limitation of claims 1 and 14, as discussed above and further teaches a dense surface oxide (inner oxide layer) (Pg. 4 [7]) and an Al-Si based plating layer formed on the base steel sheet surface (generally on the inner oxide layer) (Pg. 3 [2]) and 100-180 g/m2 of Al-Si plating based on both sides (Pg. 4 [13]; this includes densities of Al-Si plating that overlap the claimed thickness on one side). Sunrise provides evidence the specific weight is 2.68kg/dm3 (Pg. 2 [7]), which calculates to ~38 microns total, or ~19 microns per side. 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 “providing corrosion resistance and preventing toughness reduction”, these are subject to broadest reasonable interpretation and any Al-based plating layer provides some degree of corrosion resistance and any additional metal layer necessarily contributes to a degree of preventing toughness reduction (as broadly interpreted). Therefore, the prior art of Kim is considered to read on this limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments and related arguments, see Pgs. 7-8, filed July 29, 2026, with respect to claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of April 29, 2026 have been withdrawn.
The terminal disclaimer filed on July 29, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 18965090 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded. The double patenting rejections of April 29, 2026 are obviated.
Applicant's arguments filed July 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding the obviousness rejections. Applicants’ amendment to claim 1 does overcome the rejections in view of Kim, but claims 1-7 are herein rejected as obvious in view of Kim in view of Yoo. Applicant alleges that Kim states the oxide is titanium oxide, which is an incomplete summary of Kim, Kim allows that titanium is included in a dense surface oxide, but does not preclude the inclusion of other oxides. Kim in view of Yoo necessarily produces the claimed oxide structure (examiner notes the claimed oxides do not exclude the presence of titanium). The examiner has made this rejection above and no arguments have been presented to this inherency. Therefore, arguments to Kim and Yoo not teaching the claimed limitations are not persuasive.
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