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 § 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.
Claim(s) 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘219 (JP4630219) in view of Blejde et al. (US2006/0157218) and Moller (US2008/0134593).
For claim 15, ‘219 discloses a thin steel strip (figs. 1-6) comprising a material thickness of less than 1.7mm (0.1mm page 5 last paragraph of submitted translation) and a raised slip resistant pattern (61) with a height of between 0.3 and 0.7mm (0.5mm page 6 first paragraph of submitted translation) raised from a surface of the material thickness of an otherwise flat strip and ‘formed by a single hot rolling mill having a single pair of work rolls where one work roll of the pair of work rolls includes a surface pattern that is a negative of the raised slip-resistant pattern’ (product by process limitation treated in accordance with MPEP 2113- “product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”).
‘219 does not disclose that the thin steel strip is cast and silicon killed with less than 0.008% aluminum or that the pattern is diamond lugs.
Blejde et al. discloses the obviousness of making a thin cast metal strip of steel, the thin cast steel strip is silicone killed with less than 0.008% aluminum ([0062] 0.002% aluminum).
Moller discloses the obviousness of providing a slip resistant pattern (fig. 3, 211) on a metal strip (200), the pattern comprising diamond lugs [0030].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to make the thin steel strip of ‘219 of cast steel that is silicon killed with less than 0.008% aluminum as made obvious by Blejde et al. to provide a rough surface that increases traction in high foot traffic areas.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to make the pattern of ‘219 diamond lugs as made obvious by Moller since diamond lug patterns are well known in the art to provide slip resistant properties to the strip.
For claim 16, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the thickness of the strip greater than 0.7mm since this merely involves a change in size of an already disclosed element to increase the strength and load bearing ability of the strip.
For claim 17, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the thickness of the strip greater than 1.0 mm since this merely involves a change in size of an already disclosed element to increase the strength and load bearing ability of the strip.
For claim 18, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the raised slip resistant pattern as specified in ASTM A786M-2004, pattern 4 since this is public information that is available to one of ordinary skill in the art and is not unpredictable and unexpected to increase the friction acting on the strip.
For claim 19, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the raised slip resistant pattern as specified in ASTM A786M-2004, pattern 4 since this is public information that is available to one of ordinary skill in the art and is not unpredictable and unexpected to increase the friction acting on the strip.
For claim 20, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the raised slip resistant pattern as specified in ASTM A786M-2004, pattern 4 since this is public information that is available to one of ordinary skill in the art and is not unpredictable and unexpected to increase the friction acting on the strip.
For claim 21, the combination discloses that the thin cast steel strip can be coiled (Blejde et al. [0054]).
Response to Arguments
In response to the argument that the prior art does not disclose diamond pattern lugs or lug patterns supported in materials under ASTM A786M-2004, the examiner argues that diamond lug patterns are well known patterns in the art as set forth in the new rejection, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a diamond lug pattern or lug patterns supported in materials under ASTM A786M-2004 since these are patterns that are readily available to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide slip resistance.
All other arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 JOSHUA K IHEZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5347. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached on 571-272-6754. 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.
/JOSHUA K IHEZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633