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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 8 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8 June 2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 5, it is unclear whether the specified amount is a total amount of all of the at least one further element or individual amounts of each of the at least one further element. It is unclear whether inclusion of one in the claimed range means that any of the other mentioned elements could be present in any amount or whether any of the other mentioned elements would, if present, necessarily be in its specified range.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim USPA 2021/0381091. Kim teaches claimed plated steel. See Kim (Claim 1; and paragraph 31). Kim teaches ratio (a/b) ranges from 1 to 3. See Kim (Claim 2). Thus, Kim teaches that the average must be in this range as well. It is noted that this application lacks support for claimed average ratio (b/a) is 1 to 3 as originally filed. This feature was not present in the parent application, and so the effective filing date of this subject matter is the filing date of this application, which is 10 January 2025. In other words, the originally filed Specification appears to refer to limiting the ratio “(b/a)” to the range of 1 to 3, not to limiting the average to this range.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi JP 2010-100897. Hayashi teaches
IA) A zinc alloy-plated steel material having excellent corrosion resistance and surface qualities, the zinc alloy-plated steel material comprising (see paragraph [0011] of Hayashi: "According to the present invention, a molten Zn-Al-Mg- based plated steel plate having excellent corrosion resistance in a realistic corrosion environment with repeated drying and wetting can be provided");
IB) base steel and a zinc alloy-plating layer formed on the base steel (see claims 1 and 3, paragraph [0017], and Fig. l(a) of Hayashi);
IC) wherein the zinc alloy-plating layer includes, by weight %, 8 to 25% of aluminum (Al), 5 to 12% of magnesium (Mg), and a balance of zinc (Zn) and inevitable impurities (see claim 1 and paragraph [0017] of Hayashi: "at least one side of the plate has a plating layer consisting of 4-15 wt% Al, 2-8 wt% Mg, zinc and unavoidable impurities");
ID) an area fraction, occupied by a polygonal solidification phase observed on a surface of the zinc alloy-plating layer, is 20 to 90% (see claim 1 and paragraphs [0017]-[0019], and Fig. l(b) of Hayashi:"the Mg-Zn-based compound contained in the plating layer is not in a bulk and is grown in a columnar shape from near the interface between the plating layer and the base steel to the surface of the plating layer in a columnar shape exposed to the surface of the plating layer with an exposed area ratio of 15-60% on the surface of the plating layer", the hexagonal solidification phase shown in Fig. l(b) corresponds to the polygonal solidification phase); and
IE) wherein a ratio (b/a) of a major axis 'b' to a minor axis 'a' of the polygonal solidification phase is 1 to 3 (see Fig. 1 (b) of Hayashi, the hexagonal solidification phase shown in Fig. l(b) apparently satisfies the ratio (b/a) of 1 to 3);
Hayashi may not exemplify claimed concentration features in combination with other features. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to prepare range of suggested, effective compositions, including those encompassed by the claims.
Regarding Claim 2, Hayashi teaches that area ratio of 15-60% phase on the surface of Mg-Zn compound which is one or both of MgZn2 or Mg2Zn11 (paragraph 14). It would have been obvious to prepare any of these suggested effective amounts, including those encompassed by the claims.
Relationship of Claim 4 would be obtained for 4% Mg and 11% Al, among many others.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi JP 2010-100897 in view of Hashimoto USPN 10,472,710. Hayashi is relied upon as set forth above in the section 103 rejection over Hayashi. Hayashi does not teach impurities. Hashimoto discloses: "Specifically, examples of impurities include Pb, Sb, Co, Cu, In, Bi, Be, Zr, Ca, Sr, Y, Ce, and Hf. The content of impurities is preferably 0.0010% by mass or less" (see column 7, lines 44-46) and that such impurities are less than 0.0010%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to prepare plating layer with any art recognized impurity at art recognized amount as inevitable processing consequence. In doing so, plating meeting impurity requirement would be expected to be obtained.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi JP 2010-0188776. Kikuchi teaches
IA) A zinc alloy-plated steel material having excellent corrosion resistance and surface qualities, the zinc alloy-plated steel material comprising (see claim 1 of Kikuchi, "Zn-Al-Mg plated steel sheet with excellent plating appearance and corrosion resistance under repeated wet and dry environments");
IB) base steel and a zinc alloy-plating layer formed on the base steel (see claims 1 and 4, and Fig. 1 of Kikuchi);
IC) wherein the zinc alloy-plating layer includes, by weight %, 8 to 25% of aluminum (Al), 5 to 12% of magnesium (Mg), and a balance of zinc (Zn) and inevitable impurities (see claim 1 and paragraph [0018] of Kikuchi: "At least one side of the steel plate has a plating layer consisting of Al:4-15 wt%, Mg:2-10 wt% remainder of zinc and unavoidable impurities");
ID) an area fraction, occupied by a polygonal solidification phase observed on a surface of the zinc alloy-plating layer, is 20 to 90% (see claim 1 and paragraphs [0018]-[0021], and Fig. 3: "the plating layer contains 5 to 50% of Mg-Zn compounds with exposed portions on the plating surface layer as an area ratio of the surface of the plating layer", the exposed Mg-Zn compounds correspond to the polygonal solidification phase); and
IE) wherein a ratio (b/a) of a major axis 'b' to a minor axis 'a' of the polygonal solidification phase is 1 to 3 (see Fig. 3 of Kikuchi, the exposed Mg-Zn compounds shown in Fig. 3 apparently satisfy the ratio (b/a) of 1 to 3).
Kikuchi may not exemplify claimed concentration features in combination with other features. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to prepare range of suggested, effective compositions, including those encompassed by the claims.
Regarding Claim 2, Kikuchi teaches that area ratio of 5-50% phase on the surface if Mg-Zn compound which is one or both of MgZn2 or Mg2Zn11 (paragraph 20). It would have been obvious to prepare any of these suggested effective amounts, including those encompassed by the claims.
Relationship of Claim 4 would be obtained for 4% Mg and 11% Al, among many others.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi JP 2010-0188776 in view of Hashimoto USPN 10,472,710. Kikuchi is relied upon as set forth above in the section 103 rejection over Kikuchi. Kikuchi does not teach impurities. Hashimoto discloses: "Specifically, examples of impurities include Pb, Sb, Co, Cu, In, Bi, Be, Zr, Ca, Sr, Y, Ce, and Hf. The content of impurities is preferably 0.0010% by mass or less" (see column 7, lines 44-46) and that such impurities are less than 0.0010%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to prepare plating layer with any art recognized impurity at art recognized amount as inevitable processing consequence. In doing so, plating meeting impurity requirement would be expected to be obtained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E. LA VILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1539. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. from 9:00 a.m. ET to 5:30 p.m. ET.
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 N. Sheikh, can be reached on (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.
/MICHAEL E. LA VILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
15 June 2026
Prosecution Insights