DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 16, 2025 has been entered.
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
Receipt is acknowledged of a copy of WO 2020/099688, the WIPO publication of PCT/ES2018/070736 filed November 14, 2018.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks and Claim Amendments filed July 16, 2025.
Filing Date
July 16, 2025
Amended
1
New
12
Cancelled
4, 5, 7
Pending
1-3, 6, 8-12
The applicant argues support for new claim 12 in [0068] and Fig. 4 (Remarks p. 7 New Claim).
Withdrawn Abstract Objection
The following objection is withdrawn due to abstract objection:
Use of legal phraseology, such as “comprising” and “comprises” in lines 1 and 2.
Withdrawn Drawings Objection
The following drawings objection is withdrawn due to specification amendment:
Reference character 26 in Fig. 4 not being mentioned in the description.
Amended [0068], [0074], and [0075] recite “liquid bath 26”.
Withdrawn Claim Objection
The following objection is withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 1 line 4 “a second cooling chamber”.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(a) rejection is withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 1 lines 19-20 “[f] said second chamber is configured to receive an inert gas”.
The applicant persuasively argues claim 1 is amended to address the 112(a) rejection (Remarks p. 8 Claim Rejections – Section 112).
The following 112(b) rejection is withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 1 line7 “a path”.
Claim 1 lines 19-20 “[f] said second chamber is configured to receive an inert gas”.
Response to Arguments
Bauden in view of Bauden2 (‘810)
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 9, filed July 16, 2025, with respect to Bauden and Bauden2 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Bauden in view of Bauden2 (‘810) has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues Bauden only has one jet per cross-section of wire path that project upwards against the direction of gravity and Bauden2 has three jets arranged triangularly, which results in greater than a 180° angle and the lower most jets project against the direction of gravity (Remarks p. 9 paras. 2-3).
Bauden in view of Bauden2 (‘810) and Mitsuo
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 9, filed July 16, 2025, with respect to Bauden, Bauden2, and Mitsuo have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Bauden in view of Bauden2 (‘810) and Mitsuo has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues Bauden only has one jet per cross-section of wire path that project upwards against the direction of gravity and Mitsuo Figs. 1 and 2 does not read on the claimed arrangement of jets (Remarks p. 9 paras. 2-3).
Bauden discloses air conduits 7, 8, and 9 below the wire (Fig. 1), Bauden2 (‘810) discloses three perforations 8 acting as injectors surrounding wire 4 in the shape of a triangle (Fig. 2), and Mitsuo discloses water cooling chamber 13 with water sprayed from above (Fig. 2, top of p. 8). The combination of references does not render obvious claim 1 lines 6-8 “said plurality of cooling liquid inlets in the second chamber being uniformly distributed in a longitudinal direction of the wire path and in an upper part of said second chamber” in combination with claim 1 lines 17-21 “said jets being projected around the perimeter of said wire path, and wherein said plurality of cooling liquid inlets are arranged around the perimeter of the wire path in a uniform manner spanning along a complete 180° symmetrical angle with respect to a vertical plane extending through the wire path, such that none of the jets being projected from the cooling liquid inlets are projected against the direction of gravity”.
Inoue in view of Bauden, Bauden2 (‘810) and Konishi
Applicant's arguments filed July 16, 2025 with respect to Inoue in view of Bauden, Bauden2 (‘810), and Konishi have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the wire in Inoue is coiled so the jets are not arranged around the “wire path” and the jets are arranged at less than a 180° angle, such that they do not span along a 180° symmetrical angle (Remarks p. 11 para. 5).
The pending claims do not limit the form of the wire being cooled, such that the coiled wire path of Inoue reads on the claimed “wire path”.
Alternatively, Inoue in view of Bauden2 (‘810) discloses the obviousness of cooling a wire running along a wire path (Bauden2 (‘810) 1:13-16) to advantageously patent the wire (Bauden2 (‘810) 1:31-34), preventing yarns of mediocre and irregular quality (Bauden2 (‘810) 2:50-51), improving wire strength and ductility, and obtaining an inert gas atmosphere that prevents oxidation and decarburization of the wire surface (Bauden2 (‘810) 2:52-54).
Further, as evidenced by the following annotated Fig. 3 of Inoue, the arrangement of the jets 32 reads on claim 1 lines 18-20 “said plurality of cooling liquid inlets being arranged around the perimeter of the wire path in a uniform manner along a complete 180° symmetrical angle with respect to a vertical plane”.
PNG
media_image1.png
278
551
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the rejection of Inoue in view of Bauden, Bauden2 (‘810), and Konishi is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 line 15 “[e] said driving means” is interpreted as having antecedent basis to claim 1 line 9 “[c] cooling liquid driving means”.
Claim 1 line 23-24 “at least one jet of cooling liquid is projected on said wire path at a mean speed of at least 0.6 m/s” is interpreted as referring to the mean speed to the at least one cooling liquid or of the wire path.
Claim 1 line 27 “[i] said projection step” is interpreted as having antecedent basis to claim 1 lines 15-16 “[e] said driving means and the cross-section of said plurality of cooling liquid inlets being dimensioned to project jets of cooling liquid on said wire path”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are given below:
Claim 1
The claim recites the phrase “…[c] cooling liquid driving means fluidically connecting to said first and second chambers for driving said cooling liquid…” within lines 9-10. A three-prong analysis is given below:
“Means”, “Step” or a Generic Placeholder?: [YES] - “cooling liquid driving means”.
Are the terms modified by functional language, or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”?: [YES] - “for driving said cooling liquid”.
Is the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function? [NO] - However, per page 13 of the specification the examiner understands the structure to include a hydraulic pump.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 1
The claim recites the phrase “…[f]…is configured to receive an inert gas…” within lines 19-20. A three-prong analysis is given below:
“Means”, “Step” or a Generic Placeholder?: [YES] - “said second chamber”.
Are the terms modified by functional language, or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”?: [YES] - “is configure to”.
Is the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function? [NO] - The claims nor the specification sufficiently describe any structure for performing this function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In order to determine compliance with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the Federal Circuit developed a framework of factors in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), referred to as the Wands factors to assess whether any necessary experimentation required by the specification is “reasonable” or is “undue”. These factors include, but are not limited to:
The breadth of the claims;
The nature of the invention;
The state of the prior art;
The level of one of ordinary skill in the art;
The level of predictability in the art;
The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
The existence of working examples; and
The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Claim 1 lines 17-21 “said jets being projected around the perimeter of said wire path, and wherein said plurality of cooling liquid inlets are arranged around the perimeter of the wire path in a uniform manner spanning along a complete 180° symmetrical angle with respect to a vertical plane extending through the wire path, such that none of the jets being projected from the cooling liquid inlets are projected against the direction of gravity” lacks enablement.
Claim 1 lines 20-21 requires “none of the jets being projected from the cooling liquid inlets are project against the direction of gravity”. Gravity is a downward force. The only configuration that does not project jets from the cooling liquid inlets against the direction of gravity is a downward projection along the vertical axis. Jets not positioned directly downward along the vertical axis have a component of projection that is against the direction of gravity.
Claim 1 lines 17-19 also require the “jets being projected around the perimeter of said wire path” and that they are “arranged around the perimeter of the wire path in a uniform manner spanning along a complete 180° symmetrical angle”. In order to satisfy these limitations, jets are positioned more than just directly downward along the vertical axis in order to be “around the perimeter”, such as at an angle from the vertical axis. A jet position at an angle to the vertical projects against the direction of gravity.
Therefore, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the nature of the invention encompassed by the breadth of claim 1 contains contradictory limitations because jets cannot satisfy both being “around the perimeter of the wire path” and not “against the direction of gravity”.
For the purpose of examination claim 1 will be interpreted as requiring a plurality of jets projected around the perimeter of the wire path arranged in a uniform manner with all the jets pointing horizontally, downward, or at a downward angle, such that none of the jets point upward or at an upward angle.
Claims 2, 3, 6, and 8-12 are rejected as depending from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 lines 5-7 “said plurality of cooling liquid inlets…uniformly distributed in a longitudinal direction” and lines 15-21 “said plurality of cooling liquid inlets arranged around the wire path in a uniform manner” render the claim indefinite. These limitations have antecedent basis back to the same “said plurality of cooling liquid inlets”. It is unclear what the metes and bounds are of a “plurality of cooling liquid inlets” such that they satisfy both “being uniformly distributed in a longitudinal direction” (lines 5-7) and “arranged around the perimeter of the wire path in a uniform manner…” (lines 15-21).
Claim 1 line 15 [e] “the cross-section of said plurality of cooling liquid inlets” renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis. What cross-section is being referred to? Is it the longitudinal cross-section or is it the cross-section that is transverse or perpendicular to the longitude?
Claim 1 line 17 [e] “said jets being projected around the perimeter of said wire path” and lines 20-21 [e] “none of the jets being projected from the cooling liquid inlets are projected against the direction of gravity” renders the claim indefinite. According to Merriam Webster the term “around” is defined as “in every or any direction”. It is unclear how the jets can project in every or any direction around the perimeter of said wire path, but also none be against the direction of gravity. If none of the jets are projected against the direction of gravity, then it appears that the jets are not projected around the perimeter of the wire path because they are not included in a direction that project against gravity.
Claim 1 lines 18-19 [e] “said plurality of cooling liquid inlets…spanning along a complete 180° symmetrical angle” renders the claim indefinite. What are the requirements of spanning along a complete 180° symmetrical angle? Is the span complete or the 180° symmetrical angle complete? If the span is complete, then do the plurality of inlets span the entirety of the angle, in which case is the entire angle a jet? Alternatively, if the 180° symmetrical angle is complete what makes an angle complete?
Claim 1 line 19-20 [e] “a complete 180° symmetrical angle with respect to a vertical plane” renders the claim indefinite. What is the 0° reference for a complete 180° symmetrical angle with respect to a vertical plane? If it is with respect to the vertical plane, then is the 0° reference on the vertical plane, either at the top or the bottom?
As discussed in the above 112(a) rejection of claim 1 part [e], for the purpose of examination claim 1 will be interpreted as requiring a plurality of jets projected around the perimeter of the wire path arranged in a uniform manner with all the jets pointing horizontally, downward, or at a downward angle, such that none of the jets point upward or at an upward angle.
Claims 2, 3, 6, and 8-12 are rejected as being dependent upon Claim 1 as rejected above.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (JP 2007-056300 machine translation) in view of Wunning (US 5,452,882), Bauden2 (‘810) (FR 2300810 machine translation), and Konishi (WO 2004/029305).
Regarding claim 1, Inoue discloses a cooling method for cooling a wire running along a wire path (conveyor 12) in a cooling device (non-immersion type heat treatment apparatus) for cooling a wire ([0001], [0040], [0042], Fig. 1), comprising:
[a] a first containing chamber (temperature adjustment tank 20) for containing a cooling liquid (stored coolant 100) ([0040], [0046], Fig. 1), further comprising:
[b] a second chamber for cooling (refrigerant tank 10) comprising a wire inlet (horizontal conveyors 50A) and a wire outlet (horizontal conveyors 50B) arranged with respect to one another such that they define a wire path (conveyor 12) and a plurality of cooling liquid inlets and at least one cooling liquid outlet, said plurality of cooling liquid inlets (nozzle 32 with coolant injection ports) in the second chamber being uniformly distributed in a longitudinal direction of the wire path (arranged in parallel along the conveying direction of the wire) and in an upper part of said chamber (disposed opposite the bottom surface of the refrigerant tank 10) ([0040]-[0050], Fig. 1),
[c] cooling liquid driving means (pump 31) fluidically connecting said first (temperature adjustment tank 20) and second (refrigerant tank 10) chambers for driving said cooling liquid from said first chamber to said second chamber through said plurality of cooling liquid inlets (nozzle 32 with coolant injection ports) ([0043]-[0045], Fig. 1),
[d] said cooling liquid outlet (coolant outlet 11) furthermore extending into said first chamber (temperature adjustment tank 20) ([0041]-[0043], Fig. 1),
[e] said driving means (pump 31) and the cross-section of said plurality of cooling liquid inlets being dimensioned to project jets of cooling liquid on said wire path (nozzle 32 with coolant injection ports), wherein said jets of cooling liquid are localized jets (coolant injection ports at locations), said jets being projected around the perimeter of said wire path, and wherein said plurality of cooling liquid inlets are arranged around the perimeter of the wire path in a uniform manner spanning along a complete 180° symmetrical angle with respect to a vertical plane extending through the wire path, such that none of the jest being projected from the cooling liquid inlets are projected against the direction of gravity ([0030], [0045], [0046], Figs. 1-3),
PNG
media_image1.png
278
551
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the method further comprises:
a cooling liquid project step, in which at least one get of cooling liquid is projected on said wire path at a mean speed of at least 0.6 m/s (controlled cooling rate) ([0001], [0009], [0016]-[0017], [0022]-[0023], [0037]).
Inoue discloses controlling the cooling rate within a range of about 0.05°C/sec to 50.0°C/sec by supplying a jet (cooling liquid) flow allows for a wider range of heat treatment ([0016]-[0017]) by controlling the spray flow rate (cooling liquid mean speed) ([0007], [0029], [0061]). Alternatively, or additionally, Inoue also discloses it is known int he art to adjust the cooling rate by changing the conveying speed of the steel wire (wire path mean speed) ([0004]). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature (or cooling liquid mean speed or wire path mean speed) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature (or cooling liquid mean speed or wire path mean speed) is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
PNG
media_image2.png
372
810
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Inoue discloses adjusting the cooling according to the wire diameter ([0006]).
Inoue is silent to a cooling liquid project step, in which a distance between the cooling liquid inlets and said path comprised between 6 and 13 times the diameter of the wire that must be cooled.
Wunning discloses a cooling (quenching) method (1:6-15, 2:25-31), comprising: [h] a cooling liquid project step (8:29-50), in which a distance between the cooling liquid inlets and said path comprised between 6 and 13 times the diameter of the wire that must be cooled (spacing of nozzle field from the work piece surface to be chilled h is 2 d to 8 d, where d is the nozzle bore diameter) (3:18-20, 8:51-56, 10:54-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Inoue to adjust h, the distance between the nozzle field and the work piece to be cooled to control the temperature-time course of the cooling (Wunning 10:44-46, 11:25-27) by adjusting the transfer of heat (Wunning 2:43-54). Therefore, the distance between the cooling liquid inlets and the wire is a result-effective variable that influences the cooling temperature and time (Wunning 2:43-54, 10:44-46, 11:25-27). The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable are characterized as routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Inoue is silent to [d] when said cooling device is in operation, the distal end of said cooling liquid outlet is submerged in the cooling liquid held in said first chamber.
Bauden2 (‘810) discloses a cooling method for cooling a wire running along a wire path in a cooling device for cooling a wire (1:13-16), comprising: [d] said cooling liquid outlet (coolant outlet 11) furthermore extending into said first chamber (temperature adjustment tank 20), such that when said cooling device is in operation, the distal end of said cooling liquid outlet is submerged in the cooling liquid held in said first chamber (tank 10) (7:279 to 8:311, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Inoue for the distal end of the cooling liquid outlet to be submerged in the cooling liquid held in the first chamber to enable separation of the cooling liquid from any metal oxide particles entrained in the liquid sprayed against the wire before the liquid enters the outlet channel of the pump (Bauden2 (‘810) 8:292-294). Further, submerging the outlet in the cooling liquid prevents atmospheric exposure and keeps the cooling liquid fully contained in the system, minimizing splashing outside of the system.
Inoue is silent to introducing inert gas into the second chamber to create an inert gas atmosphere inside the second chamber and said projection step being in an inert atmosphere.
Konishi discloses a cooling method for cooling along a path in a cooling device for cooling (1:5-11), comprising: a second chamber configured to receive an inert gas to create an inert gas atmosphere inside said second chamber during the cooling and said projection step being in an inert atmosphere (5:32-37, 7:15-37, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the cooling projection step of Inoue to create an inert gas atmosphere to improve evenness of cooling (Konishi 2:14-20) and prevent oxidation and decarburization of the wire surface (Bauden2 (‘810) 2:52-54).
Regarding claim 2, Inoue in view of Konishi discloses said inert gas comprises at least nitrogen and hydrogen in a concentration by weight between 0 and 10% w/w (0 to 100% H2 with a usual cooling medium of about 95% N2 and about 5% H2, where hydrogen raises a heat transfer coefficient and improves cooling capacity) (2:20-27, 3:20-25, 5:32-37, 7:15-32). 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).
Regarding claim 3, Inoue discloses said mean speed for projecting cooling liquid on said wire is at least 3 m/s ([0001], [0009], [0016]-[0017], [0022]-[0023], [0037]).
Inoue discloses controlling the cooling rate within a range of about 0.05°C/sec to 50.0°C/sec by supplying a jet (cooling liquid) flow allows for a wider range of heat treatment ([0016]-[0017]) by controlling the spray flow rate (cooling liquid mean speed) ([0007], [0029], [0061]). Alternatively, or additionally, Inoue also discloses it is known int he art to adjust the cooling rate by changing the conveying speed of the steel wire (wire path mean speed) ([0004]). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature (or cooling liquid mean speed or wire path mean speed) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature (or cooling liquid mean speed or wire path mean speed) is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 6, Inoue discloses said cooling liquid is one from the group consisting of mains water, demineralized water, a solution of salts in water, a solution of polymers in water, a solution of salts and polymers in water, glycol, or cutting oil (water) ([0024]).
Regarding claim 8, with respect to the width of the cross-section of said at least one cooling liquid inlet on the plane perpendicular to said wire path is between 30% and 120% of the maximum diameter of the wire that must be cooled, Inoue in view of Bauden discloses controlling the cooling rate by supplying a jet flow (Inoue [0016]-[0017]) with a controlled spray flow rate (Inoue [0007], [0029], [0061]; Bauden [0017]) and conduit guide plates that form a thin outlet slot (Bauden [0042], Fig. 1). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 9, Inoue discloses said inert gas comprises at least nitrogen and hydrogen in a concentration by weight between 0 and 7.5% w/w (0 to 100% H2 with a usual cooling medium of about 95% N2 and about 5% H2, where hydrogen raises a heat transfer coefficient and improves cooling capacity) (2:20-27, 3:20-25, 5:32-37, 7:15-32). 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).
Regarding claim 10, Inoue discloses said inert gas comprises at least nitrogen and hydrogen in a concentration by weight between 0 and 5% w/w (0 to 100% H2 with a usual cooling medium of about 95% N2 and about 5% H2, where hydrogen raises a heat transfer coefficient and improves cooling capacity) (2:20-27, 3:20-25, 5:32-37, 7:15-32). 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).
Regarding claim 11, Inoue discloses said mean speed for projecting cooling liquid on said wire is at least 5 m/s ([0001], [0009], [0016]-[0017], [0022]-[0023], [0037]).
Inoue discloses controlling the cooling rate within a range of about 0.05°C/sec to 50.0°C/sec by supplying a jet (cooling liquid) flow allows for a wider range of heat treatment ([0016]-[0017]) by controlling the spray flow rate (cooling liquid mean speed) ([0007], [0029], [0061]). Alternatively, or additionally, Inoue also discloses it is known int he art to adjust the cooling rate by changing the conveying speed of the steel wire (wire path mean speed) ([0004]). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature (or cooling liquid mean speed or wire path mean speed) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature (or cooling liquid mean speed or wire path mean speed) is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (JP 2007-056300 machine translation) in view of Wunning (US 5,452,882), Bauden2 (‘810) (FR 2300810 machine translation), and Konishi (WO 2004/029305) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu (CN 107760856 machine translation).
Regarding claim 12, Inoue discloses the second chamber (refrigerant tank 10) ([0040]-[0050], Fig. 1).
Inoue is silent to said plurality of cooling liquid inlets being provided in an accumulation chamber surrounding the second chamber.
Hu discloses a method for cooling a wire ([0009]) said plurality of cooling liquid inlets are provided in an accumulation chamber (5. cooling box) ([0009], [0016], [0023], [0029], Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Inoue to provide the cooling liquid inlets in an accumulation chamber (5. cooling box) surrounding the second chamber (refrigerant tank 10) because the cooling box (accumulation chamber) advantageously houses the cooling liquid inlets to cool the wire using a simple structure that is easy to implement, improving cooling efficiency (Hu [0016]).
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (JP 2007-056300 machine translation) in view of Wunning (US 5,452,882), Bauden2 (‘810) (FR 2300810 machine translation), Konishi (WO 2004/029305), and Zhang (CN 204342838 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Inoue discloses a cooling method for cooling a wire running along a wire path (conveyor 12) in a cooling device (non-immersion type heat treatment apparatus) for cooling a wire ([0001], [0040], [0042], Fig. 1), comprising:
[a] a first containing chamber (temperature adjustment tank 20) for containing a cooling liquid (stored coolant 100) ([0040], [0046], Fig. 1), further comprising:
[b] a second chamber for cooling (refrigerant tank 10) comprising a wire inlet (horizontal conveyors 50A) and a wire outlet (horizontal conveyors 50B) arranged with respect to one another such that they define a wire path (conveyor 12) and a plurality of cooling liquid inlets and at least one cooling liquid outlet, said plurality of cooling liquid inlets (nozzle 32 with coolant injection ports) in the second chamber being uniformly distributed in a longitudinal direction of the wire path (arranged in parallel along the conveying direction of the wire) and in an upper part of said chamber (disposed opposite the bottom surface of the refrigerant tank 10) ([0040]-[0050], Fig. 1),
[c] cooling liquid driving means (pump 31) fluidically connecting said first (temperature adjustment tank 20) and second (refrigerant tank 10) chambers for driving said cooling liquid from said first chamber to said second chamber through said plurality of cooling liquid inlets (nozzle 32 with coolant injection ports) ([0043]-[0045], Fig. 1),
[d] said cooling liquid outlet (coolant outlet 11) furthermore extending into said first chamber (temperature adjustment tank 20) ([0041]-[0043], Fig. 1),
[e] said driving means (pump 31) and the cross-section of said plurality of cooling liquid inlets being dimensioned to project jets of cooling liquid on said wire path (nozzle 32 with coolant injection ports), wherein said jets of cooling liquid are localized jets (coolant injection ports at locations), said jets being projected around the perimeter of said wire path, , such that none of the jets being projected from the cooling liquid inlets are projected against the direction of gravity ([0030], [0045], [0046], Figs. 1-3),
the method further comprises:
a cooling liquid project step, in which at least one get of cooling liquid is projected on said wire path at a mean speed of at least 0.6 m/s (controlled cooling rate) ([0001], [0009], [0016]-[0017], [0022]-[0023], [0037]).
Inoue discloses controlling the cooling rate within a range of about 0.05°C/sec to 50.0°C/sec by supplying a jet (cooling liquid) flow allows for a wider range of heat treatment ([0016]-[0017]) by controlling the spray flow rate (cooling liquid mean speed) ([0007], [0029], [0061]). Alternatively, or additionally, Inoue also discloses it is known int he art to adjust the cooling rate by changing the conveying speed of the steel wire (wire path mean speed) ([0004]). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature (or cooling liquid mean speed or wire path mean speed) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature (or cooling liquid mean speed or wire path mean speed) is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
PNG
media_image2.png
372
810
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Inoue discloses adjusting the cooling according to the wire diameter ([0006]).
Inoue is silent to a cooling liquid project step, in which a distance between the cooling liquid inlets and said path comprised between 6 and 13 times the diameter of the wire that must be cooled.
Wunning discloses a cooling (quenching) method (1:6-15, 2:25-31), comprising: [h] a cooling liquid project step (8:29-50), in which a distance between the cooling liquid inlets and said path comprised between 6 and 13 times the diameter of the wire that must be cooled (spacing of nozzle field from the work piece surface to be chilled h is 2 d to 8 d, where d is the nozzle bore diameter) (3:18-20, 8:51-56, 10:54-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Inoue to adjust h, the distance between the nozzle field and the work piece to be cooled to control the temperature-time course of the cooling (Wunning 10:44-46, 11:25-27) by adjusting the transfer of heat (Wunning 2:43-54). Therefore, the distance between the cooling liquid inlets and the wire is a result-effective variable that influences the cooling temperature and time (Wunning 2:43-54, 10:44-46, 11:25-27). The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable are characterized as routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Inoue is silent to [d] when said cooling device is in operation, the distal end of said cooling liquid outlet is submerged in the cooling liquid held in said first chamber.
Bauden2 (‘810) discloses a cooling method for cooling a wire running along a wire path in a cooling device for cooling a wire (1:13-16), comprising: [d] said cooling liquid outlet (coolant outlet 11) furthermore extending into said first chamber (temperature adjustment tank 20), such that when said cooling device is in operation, the distal end of said cooling liquid outlet is submerged in the cooling liquid held in said first chamber (tank 10) (7:279 to 8:311, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Inoue for the distal end of the cooling liquid outlet to be submerged in the cooling liquid held in the first chamber to enable separation of the cooling liquid from any metal oxide particles entrained in the liquid sprayed against the wire before the liquid enters the outlet channel of the pump (Bauden2 (‘810) 8:292-294). Further, submerging the outlet in the cooling liquid prevents atmospheric exposure and keeps the cooling liquid fully contained in the system, minimizing splashing outside of the system.
Inoue is silent to introducing inert gas into the second chamber to create an inert gas atmosphere inside the second chamber and said projection step being in an inert atmosphere.
Konishi discloses a cooling method for cooling along a path in a cooling device for cooling (1:5-11), comprising: a second chamber configured to receive an inert gas to create an inert gas atmosphere inside said second chamber during the cooling and said projection step being in an inert atmosphere (5:32-37, 7:15-37, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the cooling projection step of Inoue to create an inert gas atmosphere to improve evenness of cooling (Konishi 2:14-20) and prevent oxidation and decarburization of the wire surface (Bauden2 (‘810) 2:52-54).
Inoue discloses a wire ([0001]).
Bauden2 (‘810) discloses a cooling method for cooling a wire running along a wire path in a cooling device for cooling a wire (1:13-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Inoue to use the wire disclosed by Bauden2 (‘810) to patent the wire (Bauden2 (‘810) 1:31-34), preventing yarns of mediocre and irregular quality (Bauden2 (‘810) 2:50-51) and improving wire strength and ductility, and making it practically possible to obtain an inert gas atmosphere, preventing oxidation and decarburization of the wire surface (Bauden2 (‘810) 2:52-54).
Inoue is silent to said plurality of cooling liquid inlets are arranged around the perimeter of the wire path in a uniform manner spanning along a 180° symmetrical angle with respect to a vertical plane extending through the wire path.
Zhang discloses a cooling (quenching) method ([0002]) including a plurality of cooling liquid inlets (spray pipes 6, 7) that are arranged around the perimeter of the wire path in a uniform manner spanning along a complete 180° symmetrical angle with respect to a vertical plane extending through the wire path ([0016], [0019]-[0020], Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Inoue to arrange the plurality of cooling liquid inlets as disclosed by Zhang to ensure that the upper and lower spray pipes more evenly and fully spray water (Zhang [0010]), improving efficiency (Zhang [0012])
Regarding claim 2, Inoue in view of Konishi discloses said inert gas comprises at least nitrogen and hydrogen in a concentration by weight between 0 and 10% w/w (0 to 100% H2 with a usual cooling medium of about 95% N2 and about 5% H2, where hydrogen raises a heat transfer coefficient and improves cooling capacity) (2:20-27, 3:20-25, 5:32-37, 7:15-32). 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).
Regarding claim 3, Inoue discloses said mean speed for projecting cooling liquid on said wire is at least 3 m/s ([0001], [0009], [0016]-[0017], [0022]-[0023], [0037]).
Inoue discloses controlling the cooling rate within a range of about 0.05°C/sec to 50.0°C/sec by supplying a jet (cooling liquid) flow allows for a wider range of heat treatment ([0016]-[0017]) by controlling the spray flow rate (cooling liquid mean speed) ([0007], [0029], [0061]). Alternatively, or additionally, Inoue also discloses it is known int he art to adjust the cooling rate by changing the conveying speed of the steel wire (wire path mean speed) ([0004]). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature (or cooling liquid mean speed or wire path mean speed) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature (or cooling liquid mean speed or wire path mean speed) is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 6, Inoue discloses said cooling liquid is one from the group consisting of mains water, demineralized water, a solution of salts in water, a solution of polymers in water, a solution of salts and polymers in water, glycol, or cutting oil (water) ([0024]).
Regarding claim 8, with respect to the width of the cross-section of said at least one cooling liquid inlet on the plane perpendicular to said wire path is between 30% and 120% of the maximum diameter of the wire that must be cooled, Inoue in view of Bauden discloses controlling the cooling rate by supplying a jet flow (Inoue [0016]-[0017]) with a controlled spray flow rate (Inoue [0007], [0029], [0061]; Bauden [0017]) and conduit guide plates that form a thin outlet slot (Bauden [0042], Fig. 1). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 9, Inoue discloses said inert gas comprises at least nitrogen and hydrogen in a concentration by weight between 0 and 7.5% w/w (0 to 100% H2 with a usual cooling medium of about 95% N2 and about 5% H2, where hydrogen raises a heat transfer coefficient and improves cooling capacity) (2:20-27, 3:20-25, 5:32-37, 7:15-32). 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).
Regarding claim 10, Inoue discloses said inert gas comprises at least nitrogen and hydrogen in a concentration by weight between 0 and 5% w/w (0 to 100% H2 with a usual cooling medium of about 95% N2 and about 5% H2, where hydrogen raises a heat transfer coefficient and improves cooling capacity) (2:20-27, 3:20-25, 5:32-37, 7:15-32). 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).
Regarding claim 11, Inoue discloses said mean speed for projecting cooling liquid on said wire is at least 5 m/s ([0001], [0009], [0016]-[0017], [0022]-[0023], [0037]).
Inoue discloses controlling the cooling rate within a range of about 0.05°C/sec to 50.0°C/sec by supplying a jet (cooling liquid) flow allows for a wider range of heat treatment ([0016]-[0017]) by controlling the spray flow rate (cooling liquid mean speed) ([0007], [0029], [0061]). Alternatively, or additionally, Inoue also discloses it is known int he art to adjust the cooling rate by changing the conveying speed of the steel wire (wire path mean speed) ([0004]). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature (or cooling liquid mean speed or wire path mean speed) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature (or cooling liquid mean speed or wire path mean speed) is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (JP 2007-056300 machine translation) in view of Wunning (US 5,452,882), Bauden2 (‘810) (FR 2300810 machine translation), Konishi (WO 2004/029305), and Zhang (CN 204342838 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu (CN 107760856 machine translation).
Regarding claim 12, Inoue discloses the second chamber (refrigerant tank 10) ([0040]-[0050], Fig. 1).
Inoue is silent to said plurality of cooling liquid inlets being provided in an accumulation chamber surrounding the second chamber.
Hu discloses a method for cooling a wire ([0009]) said plurality of cooling liquid inlets are provided in an accumulation chamber (5. cooling box) ([0009], [0016], [0023], [0029], Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Inoue to provide the cooling liquid inlets in an accumulation chamber (5. cooling box) surrounding the second chamber (refrigerant tank 10) because the cooling box (accumulation chamber) advantageously houses the cooling l