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
Claims 24-28, 31-33 & 35-49 are pending in the application with Claims 42-46 being withdrawn and Claims 24-28, 31-33, 35-41 and 47-49 pending examination. No claims have been amended.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections
Applicant argues claim 24 recited how the thermal treatment steps are impacted by specific calculations. The arguments are not persuasive.
Independent claim 24 doesn’t recite any impactful specific calculations but only recites generic ideas for treatment steps which include mental calculations and mental steps. A selection substep which includes a comparison (i.e., a mental step), a “calculation substep” (i.e., a mathematical concept), a selection substep (i.e., a mental step); and that all of these steps appear to represent abstract ideas. The amendment to include further mathematical calculations to the mental steps does not overcome the 101 rejection and put the mental process steps into patent eligible form as laid out in the and guided by the Supreme Courts two-step framework. Thus, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is being maintained.
Applicant appears to argue that step B was not considered and when taken as a whole, the claims overcome the 101 rejection. Applicant also argues that the conventional treatments do not obtain expected properties. These arguments are not persuasive.
The additional calculations and metal steps were considered and addressed in at least the Response to Arguments section. Regarding the expectation of particular properties, there has been no evidence to support that the processes of the prior art that uses the same conventional steps as claimed do not obtain the expected properties. There has not been any evidence to showing how the additional steps amount to significantly more.
Applicant argues the prior art of Franz and Wakako do not teach the steps as discussed in the claims. This argument is unpersuasive.
The combined teachings of Franz and Wakako as discussed below select chemical compositions when the steels are selected and microstructures are selected and targeted through the processes of changing the processing steps to achieve the phase proportions and maintain proper hot rolling temperatures for the desired steel properties.
Regarding the Double Patenting rejection, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 24-28, 31-33, 35-41 & 47-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following reasons.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Is The Claim Directed to a Law of Nature, Natural Phenomenon, or an Abstract Idea?
[YES]: Claim 24 recites the steps given within A(1), A(2), and A(3) of the instant claim. However, these steps are merely mental steps which are performed by the mind and amount to data gathering and manipulation and therefore is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements that Integrate the Judicial Exception Into a Practical Application?
[NO]: With respect Step 2A Prong Two, the examiner points out that the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The examiner does point out that the claim incorporates the features including: “a calculation substep wherein at least two thermal path TPx, each TPx including a plurality of thermal treatment steps including a heating step, a soaking step and a cooling step and achieving a microstructure mx obtained at the end of TPx”. However, as there is very limited structure (i.e. sufficient detail) with regard to the thermal treatment step, even when considering the most recent amendments to the instant claim with respect to step A2, it does not appear that the claim “transform[s] the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. The amendments only add more calculation steps to the substep calculations and one calculation is only calculating an inherent feature of any metal heating process. See MPEP 2106.04 (II) (A) (2).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Amount to Significantly More?
[NO]: With respect to Step 2B, when an additional element is considered individually by an examiner the additional element may be enough to qualify as “significantly more” if it meaningfully limits the judicial exception, and may also add a meaningful limitation by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) when the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 198. See also MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, the limitations as recited within “B” do not qualify as “significantly more”. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea and is therefore not patent eligible.
Claims 25-28, 31-33, 35-41 & 47-49 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected Claim 24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 24-28, 31-33, 35-41 & 47-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0265146 (Franz) in view of US 4,745,786 (Wakako).
Regarding Claim 24, Franz teaches a method of modeling the time gradient of the state of a steel volume by means of a computer and corresponding objects (abstract). Franz teaches thermal treatment modeling of a steel sheet having a composition and a microstructure comprising at least
austenite, ferrite, and cementite in a heat treatment line (paragraphs [0023], and [0060]).
Franz teaches a calculation substep wherein a plurality of thermal paths (e.g., Figure 9; paragraphs [0060] through [0103]) corresponding to a microstructure obtained at the end of the thermal paths and including at least one thermal treatment step (paragraphs [0085], and [0088]-[0090]) are calculated based on a selected product and initial microstructure to reach a targeted microstructure (paragraphs [0023], and [0088]-[0090]).
With respect to the feature of "a selection substep wherein one thermal path TPtarget, from amongst the at least two thermal paths TPx, achieving a mₓ closest to Mtarget is selected" - it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that a plurality of thermal paths are calculated within the disclosure of Franz of which lead to a plurality of target microstructures and that the most optimal of those thermal paths would be selected that is closest to the calculated path. The examiner elaborates by pointing out that within Figure 9 of Franz it is shown that the modeling can be used on line by:
Determining the thermal conductivity and temperature of a volume element of steel and determining the enthalpy value of a provisional state Z' (step S6')
Determining the proportions of austenite, ferrite, and cementite (step S7)
Comparing the provisional state Z' to target Z* (step S16)
Thus, the examiner points out that if the provisional step Z' is close enough to the target Z*, then the process variable P is transferred to the influencing device on the line (e.g., Step S19).
Otherwise, the computer initiates another round of calculation by varying the variable P, until the provisional step Z' converges enough towards to target Z* (e.g., Step S18). This is further supported within paragraph [0102] of which collaborates the comparison of the provisional state Z' to the target being done through the comparison of the temperature of the steel sheet.
Continuing, Franz teaches a thermal treatment step, wherein TPtarget is performed on the steel sheet (paragraph [0007]). However, Franz does not teach a selection substep wherein a chemical composition and Mtarget are compared to a list of predefined products, in which the microstructure includes predefined phases and predefined proportions of phases and selecting a product from the list of predefined products having a microstructure closest to the target microstructure and a predefined thermal path to obtain said microstructure, the predefined thermal path including at least one predefined thermal treatment step.
Franz does not teach a selection substep wherein one thermal path from amongst the at least two thermal paths achieve a microstructure closest to the targeted microstructure.
Wakako teaches a hot rolling method and apparatus for hot rolling (abstract). Wakako teaches a selection substep wherein a chemical composition and Mtarget (i.e., a targeted microstructure), wherein the microstructure includes predefined phases and predefined proportions of phases and selecting a product having a microstructure closest to the target microstructure and a predefined thermal path or TP to obtain said microstructure, the predefined thermal path including at least one predefined thermal treatment step (column 3, line 47 through column 4, line 68; column 8, lines 27-55). Wakako teaches performing at least one thermal treatment step of a selected thermal path on a steel sheet in a heat treatment line to transform an initial microstructure in a steel sheet to a targeted microstructure (column 7, line 66 through column 8, line 26). Wakako teaches this feature allows for a uniform microstructural control (column 2, lines 42-45).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Franz with the concepts of Wakako with the motivation of achieving uniform microstructural control.
While Franz and Wakako are silent to calculating general enthalpy and a various temperature functional calculation based on all known characteristics of the materials, these calculations are well-known and would be obvious to perform to obtain the inherent numbers that represent the enthalpy of the process and the temperature of the treatment. Furthermore, Franz teaches percentages of austenite, ferrite, and cementite (paragraph [0023]). Thus, Franz meets the limitations within the instant claim since the claim does not require any specific amounts of any phases, so long as one of the phases exists. All phase changes naturally possess a change in enthalpy (both endothermic and exothermic) as can be shown using basic thermodynamics.
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2112- 2112.02.
Thus, while Franz nor Wakako teaches the specific equation recited within the claims, the prior art teaches achieving an identical structure that would have occurred at substantially similar temperatures during substantially similar periods.
Thus, it would have been obvious to consider the variables that naturally affect this process including the specific heat of each phase, the density and thickness of the component being worked upon, and the heat flux that is occurring during treatment. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. The source of that knowledge and ability was documentary prior art, general knowledge in the art, or common sense.
Regarding Claim 25, Franz teaches wherein predefined phases are defined by at least a chemical composition (paragraph [0060]).
Regarding Claim 26, Franz teaches a target microstructure comprising ferrite and residual austenite (paragraph [0059]).
Regarding Claim 27, Franz teaches a steel containing ferrite, cementite, and austenite and thus teaches a triplex steel (paragraph [0059]).
Regarding Claim 28, the examiner points out that the limitation of "wherein the differences between proportions of phase present in Mtarget and mx is ±3% would have been an obvious feature of Franz. To elaborate, the examiner points out that as stated above - Franz teaches a plurality of target microstructures and that the most optimal of those thermal paths would be selected that is closest to the calculated path. Thus, resolving these paths to an optimal path that is within a 6% range (i.e., +3%) is well within the capabilities of one or ordinary skill and certainly within the capability of the system of Franz of which utilizes in-situ monitoring of the process and deviation correction routines (e.g., see Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 31, Franz does not explicitly teach at least one intermediate steel microstructure corresponding to an intermediate thermal path.
Wakako teaches at least one intermediate steel microstructure corresponding to an intermediate thermal path (column 2, line 53 through column 3, line 47). Wakako teaches this feature, in part, reduces temperature deviations within the process (column 3, lines 45-47).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Franz with the concepts of Wakako with the motivation of reducing temperature deviations.
Regarding Claim 32, with respect to the feature "wherein in step A.2), TPx is a sum of all TPxint and Hx is a sum of all Hxint" - the examiner points out this is an obvious to choice to one of ordinary skill. To elaborate, one of ordinary skill would not remove any steps or variables when performing a time and temperature calculation with respect to a heat treatment as this would inherently cause heat transfer imbalances and lead to part distortion and unwanted microstructures.
Regarding Claim 33, Franz does not explicitly teach targeting a mechanical property.
Wakako teaches targeting the property of formability (column 4, lines 22-68; column 6, lines 41-60). Wakako teaches calculating targeting this property allows for the suppression of localize wear upon transfer rolls within the heat treatment device (column 6, lines 55-60).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Franz with the concepts of Wakako with the motivation of reduces roll wear.
Regarding Claim 35, Franz is silent to taking into account process parameters that occur to a steel before entering a heat treatment line.
Wakako teaches considering process parameters (e.g., rough hot rolling) occurring to a steel sheet before it enters a heat treatment line (column 2, line 65 through column 3, line 19). Wakako teaches this consideration allows for the subsequent intermediate heat treatment steps to be enabled (column 3, lines 3-19).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Franz with the concepts of Wakako with the motivation of enabling an improved heat treatment process.
Regarding Claim 36, Franz teaches the process parameters comprising at least a cooling temperature (paragraph [0073]).
Regarding Claim 37, Franz teaches wherein process parameters of a heat treatment line that the steel sheet will undergo will be taken into account to calculate TPx (paragraphs [0088]- [0104]). Furthermore, the examiner points out that all of the instant limitations are merely data manipulation and data gathering and are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 38, Franz teaches said process parameters including a heating power of the heating sections (paragraph [0088]).
Regarding Claim 39, Franz teaches the thermal path, TPx comprising a cooling treatment (paragraph [0073]).
Regarding Claim 40, the examiner points out that calculating a new treatment scheme (e.g., by calculating at least two thermal paths TPx, each TPx corresponding to a microstructure mx obtained at the end of TPx and including at least one thermal treatment step, based on the selected product of step A.1) and TPstandard and the initial microstructure mᵢ of the steel sheet to reach Mtarget) when a new steel sheet enters a line is an obvious choice as otherwise a microstructural deviation would naturally occur for sheets of different compositions.
Regarding Claim 41, the examiner points out that a thermal path adaptation being performed when a new steel sheet enters into a heat treatment line is an obvious choice as otherwise a microstructural deviation would naturally occur for sheets of different compositions.
Regarding Claim 47, Wakako teaches the at least one thermal treatment step including a full austenitic annealing (column 7, lines 66 through column 8, line 26)
Claims 48 & 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0265146 (Franz) in view of US 4,745,786 (Wakako) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of US 2015/0211089 (Fukunaga).
Regarding Claim 48 and Claim 49, Franz in view of Wakako are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing claim 24. However, none of the references teach at least one thermal treatment step including a recrystallization annealing.
Fukunaga teaches a rapid heating apparatus of a continuous annealing line (abstract). Fukunaga teaches at least one thermal treatment step including a recrystallization annealing (paragraph [0028]). Fukunaga teaches this processing being performed in a continuous annealing furnace including a heating section, a soaking section, and a cooling section (paragraph [0028]). Fukunaga teaches this process improves the magnetic properties within steels (paragraph [0030]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Franz in view of Fukunaga with the motivation of enhancing select properties within specific steels.
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 KEITH WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-3458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4pm.
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.
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.
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights