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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 10/24/2025, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claims. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10 and 12-15 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10/24/2025 have been considered but are deemed unpersuasive as they are directed to newly added claim requirements that are specifically addressed hereinafter.
As for the requirement as it relates to the EM force being used as input for controlling the actuator for positioning the rollers (i.e. control device that controls actuator in response to EM force exceeding) is noted. Examiner cites herein JP 460, which discloses and makes obvious the inclusion of the EM force used as a input for movement of the correction rollers as outlined in the prior art rejection that follows.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2002285309, hereinafter JP 309 taken collectively with EP 1516939 A1, hereinafter JP 939 or visa versa, each further with CN 103597111 A, hereinafter CN 111 and JP 2003113460, hereinafter JP 460.
Claim 1: JP 309 discloses a coating device for coating a metal strip with a liquid coating medium, comprising: a coating container filled with the liquid coating medium (figure 1 and accompanying text); a stripping nozzle device (figure 1 and accompanying text, Figure 5);
a strip stabilizing device with a plurality of magnets on the two wide sides of a slot of the strip stabilizing device (Figure 1-3 and accompanying text);
at least one sensor for detecting the actual shape of the metal strip (0015), JP 309 discloses displacement sensors that provide measurement of the actual shape (Figure 6 and accompanying text) and such would encompass actual position, see e.g. JP 309 stating “based on the detection signal of the strip position from the same displacement sensor” and thus the sensor of JP 309 reasonably can be configured to measure the position and shape. Regardless, the shape of the strip would be a measure of the actual position of the strip and thus meets the claim requirements. In other words, the shape of the strip directly reads on the position of the step as claimed (see abstract stating “the correction of the shape of the strip 1 is carried out by controlling excitation current of the electromagnets 7 by detected signals related to the position of the strip from the displacement sensors 6”, as such the JP 309 illustrates that the position and shape are measured by the sensor).
and a control device for determining a shape regulation difference as a difference between the actual shape of the metal strip and a predetermined target shape of the metal strip in a region of the stripping nozzle device and for controlling the magnets by way of a magnet actuator (Figure 2-3 and accompanying text, 0023-0024, 0033, 0037),
and a control device for determining a position regulation difference (i.e. shape of the strip will be the position of the strip) as a difference between the actual position of the metal strip and a predetermined target position of the metal strip in a region of the stripping nozzle device and for controlling the magnets by way of a magnet actuator;
wherein the control device and the magnet actuator are further constructed to offset at least one of the magnets in dependence on the shape regulation difference in width direction of the metal strip relative to at least one of the magnets on an opposite wide side of the metal strip and displace it into a moved position where it is at least approximately opposite a trough in the actual shape of the strip (Figure 3 and accompanying text).
JP 309 discloses shape adjustment; however, fails to disclose the control device is configured to cause more than one half of the plurality of magnets to generate a tension force on the metal strip at the same time, wherein the control device configured to cause more than one half of the plurality of magnets to generate a tension force at the same time such that the tension force causes a position change towards the magnet.
However, EP 939, also discloses shape adjustment (See e.g. Figure 2) and discloses that the electromagnets cause a tension force such that the tension force causes a position change towards the magnet (see Figure 2 and accompanying test). EP 939 discloses using a plurality of magnets to generate a tension force on the strip at the same time and using the control device to cause a select number of magnets on each side of the strip to generate a tension force to cause a position correction towards the magnet that generates the force for the desired shape correction (see Figure 5 and accompanying text). Therefore, taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to use the control device to have selectively activate the desired electromagnets on both sides of the strip to predictable correct the shape of the strip by causing the strip to move positions towards the magnets that generate the tension force.
As for the use of more than one half, the examiner notes that EP 939 exemplifies less than one half in Figure 5; however, the reference, taking as a whole discloses a plurality of electromagnets are arranged along the width direction and “the selected number therefore is used depending on the magnitude of the warp in the width direction.” As such, the number of electromagnets activated and turned on is recognized by EP 939 as a result effective variable and individually selectable based on the shape desired and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum number, including more than one half, through routine experimentation and to achieve the desired shape correction.
As for the requirement related to the at least one of the magnets generating the tension force is offset in the width direction relative to all of the magnets on the opposite wide side of the metal strip, the examiner notes that EP 939 specifically discloses using magnets on each side of the substrate and wherein the magnets generating the tension force are offset in the width direction relative to all of the magnets on the opposite wide side of the metal strip (see Figure 5, wherein the magnets generate the attractive force are offset from each other). Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have modified JP 309 to provide magnets that are offset in the width direction relative to all of the magnets on the opposite wide side of the metal strip as such is suggested by EP 939 as a known method for achieving attractive force and correction of the steel strip within the channel.
Alternatively, EP 939 discloses a coating device for coating a metal strip, a container, a stripping nozzle and a strip stabilizing device with a plurality of magnets on two wide sides of a slow of the strip stabilizing device and a control device for determining a shape regulation difference between an actual shape and a target shape (Figure 4 and 5 and accompanying text, Figure 6 as it relates to the control). EP 939 discloses at least one of the magnet that generates the tension force is offset in the width direction to all of the magnets on the opposite wide side (Figure 5).
As for the control device configured to cause more than one half to generate a tension force at the same time, EP 939 discloses “the selected number therefore is used depending on the magnitude of the warp in the width direction.” As such, the number of electromagnets activated and turned on is recognized by EP 939 as a result effective variable and individually selectable based on the shape desired and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum number, including more than one half, through routine experimentation and to achieve the desired shape correction.
EP 939 fails to disclose the magnet actuator and control device to move at least one magnet in dependent on the shape regulation such that it is moved opposite a trough in the actual shape. However, JP 309, also in the art of shape control of a steel strip using electromagnets, discloses control device and the magnet actuator are further constructed to offset at least one of the magnets in dependence on the shape regulation difference in width direction of the metal strip relative to at least one of the magnets on an opposite wide side of the metal strip and displace it into a moved position where it is at least approximately opposite a trough in the actual shape of the strip (Figure 3 and accompanying text). JP 309 discloses such control and actuation to move the electromagnets into the optimum position for correction (Figure 3b and accompanying text). Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified EP 939 to provide an actuator and control mechanism as suggested by JP 309 to reap the benefits of moving the electromagnets into the optimum correction position.
JP 309 discloses displacement sensors that provide measurement of the actual shape (Figure 6 and accompanying text). Additionally, EP 939 explicitly discloses using a sensor for detecting the actual shape of the strip (0041) and as such using this known and suitable sensor would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
JP 309 with EP 939 or visa versa discloses all that is taught above and discloses the stripping nozzles and electromagnets for stabilization; however, fails to disclose using a correction roller with actuator upstream of the stripping nozzles. However, CN 111 discloses a strip stabilization apparatus using stripping nozzles and electromagnets for stabilization and including correction rollers upstream of the stripping nozzle and wherein the control device is configured to control an actuator of the correction roller in such a way that the device is operable within operating limits (see Figure 2 and accompanying text, see discussion of figure 2 related to the pushing amount in the thickness direction of the support roll, 00129 related to the control device setting the arrangement and Intermesh of support rolls). CN 111 discloses the correction roller is arranged in the coating container (Figure 2). CN 111, also in the art of shape and position control of a steel strip using EM control, discloses using correction rollers within the bath and adjusting the actuator so that the EM force applied, i.e. tension, is within the predetermined range, above and below set threshold values (see e.g. 0092 stating “of the supporting roller for pressing quantity of the steel plate is adjusted so as to apply the state of electromagnetic force in the shape of position of the plate of the steel plate width direction of the electromagnet warp quantity becomes in a predetermined range”).
Therefore, taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to include correction rollers and the controller configured to adjusted the actuator as taught by CN 111 to reap the benefits of their inclusion as specifically articulated by CN 111, i.e. increased control over the plate shape. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR Int'l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d. A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Collection of cited prior art discloses adjusting the correction rollers and controller adjusting the actuator as claimed; however, fails to disclose the controller is configured to control the actuator for positioning the correction roller if the tension force exceeds a predetermined force limit. However, CN 111 explicitly discloses and/or makes obvious controlling the pressing quantity of the roller is adjusted such that the force of the EM becomes into a predetermined range.
Additionally, JP 460, also in the art of position control of a steel strip using EM magnets, including a container filled with molten metal, a correction roller arranged in the container, actuator for moving the correction roller, stripping nozzle device and strip stabilization device (see Figure 1 and accompanying text), similar to that as taught by JP 309 with EP 939 or visa versa as applied above, disclose controlling the roller in the tank (see e.g. Figure 1, paragraph 11, Figure 2 and accompanying text). JP 460 discloses that in response to the value of the EM exceed a threshold moving the roller in the bath, i.e. detect value of each electromagnet is detected . . . it is determined whether this maximum value has exceeded a preset threshold value . . . if it exceeds, it is determined the strip is off-center . . . the rollers are moved, where the value of EM output value detected can reasonably read on the tension force as claimed, see paragraph 35-38, 0093. JP 460 discloses that by moving the roller in the bath when the EM is above the threshold/preset value (detect the output value of the EM and compare to a threshold, see 0093, the strip can be positioned in the center of the nozzle and uniform plating (0039) and the strip position can be optimized the control output on the EM side can be minimized and the control power can be reduced (0040). Therefore, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have modified JP 309 with EP 939 or visa versa to include a control device that is configured to control the movement of the roller in the bath in response to the tension force (i.e. output of the EM) exceeds the threshold to reap the benefits as specifically articulated by JP 460 and to optimize the power and strip position.
Claim 2: JP 309 discloses in addition to the actual shape measurement, the position, i.e. meandering, of the strip is determined and controlled (0037) by the displacement of the at least one of the magnets in the width direction (R) of the metal strip relative the
at least one magnet on the opposite wide side of the metal strip is also carried out in dependence on the position regulation difference so that the strip is transferred from its actual position to the predetermined target position (See figure 3 movement of magnet relative to magnet on other side is taught at Figure 3 and accompanying text). Additionally, modifying EP 939 to use such would have been obvious to reap the benefits of correcting meandering as suggested by JP 309.
Claim 4: JP 309 discloses control device is further constructed to also set a current (l) through the at least one magnet in such a way in dependence on the actual shape and/or the actual position of the metal strip that the target shape and the target position is or are achieved as far as possible (see Figure 5 and accompanying text, i.e. use non-use, 0023).
EP 939 discloses control device is further constructed to also set a current (l) through the at least one magnet in such a way in dependence on the actual shape and/or the actual position of the metal strip that the target shape and the target position is or are achieved as far as possible (see Figure 5 and accompanying text, i.e. On/Off).
Please note that the coating device is an apparatus and therefore is not limited to the intended use of the structure. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim 5: EP 939 discloses the number of magnets is uneven (Figure 5). JP 309 discloses a number of magnets per wide side is uneven (Figure 3, Figure 5).
Claim 6: JP 309 discloses the plurality of magnets is ten, five on each side of the strip (figures 2 and 3) and in combination with EP 939 as applied above would make obvious six or more the of the ten magnets generates a force at the same time for the reasons set forth above. Specifically, EP 939 exemplifies less than one half in Figure 5; however, the reference, taking as a whole discloses a plurality of electromagnets are arranged along the width direction and “the selected number therefore is used depending on the magnitude of the warp in the width direction. As such, the number of electromagnets activated and turned on is recognized by EP 939 as a result effective variable and individually selectable based on the shape desired and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum number, including more than one half, through routine experimentation and to achieve the desired shape correction.
Claim 12: CN 111 discloses the control device is configured to adjust the correction roller during the ongoing process (see 0129, 0174 related to adjusting the intermesh of support rolls, 0130 related to the continuous control).
Claim 13: CN 111 discloses using a database 15 and using the database to store relevant data from past operation results of the apparatus and test results (see 150, 0151, see method of using database). CN 111 fails to explicitly disclose the database stores the magnet position in the width direction; however, CN 111 generally discloses the database include correction shape information for the various plate passing conditions based on past operations and testing. Therefore, based on the level of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, taking the references collectively that makes obvious controlling the location of the magnets as discussed above, it would have been obvious to have stored the magnet location as a plate passing condition as one of ordinary skill in the art, reading CN 111, would envision that the database should include various information to reap the benefits of providing increased control over the process.
Claim 14: CN 111 discloses using a database 15 and using the database to store relevant data from past operation results of the apparatus and test results (see 151, 0153, see method of using database, 0174 “past work actual results, through testing results of the testing machine to determine the information of the proper value”). CN 111 discloses the database specifically includes plate thickness, plate width and roller arrangement (0174-0178). CN 111 generally discloses the database include correction shape information for the various plate passing conditions based on past operations and testing which would include the claimed classifications.
Claim 15: CN 111 specifically discloses using the set conditions, i.e. database, to set the magnet positions and thus the magnet positions are based on the data stored in database (0174 related to database for set conditions and setting 0177 stating “the control device 14 based on the set conditions in the S100, S102, roller configuration and so on, to set the magnet position of steel plate 2 in the plate width direction Y”)
Claim 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 309 taken with EP 939 or visa versa each with CN 111 and JP 460 as applied above and with KR101445430, hereinafter KR 430.
Claim 8: JP 309 taken with EP 939 or visa versa each with CN 111 discloses all that is taught above and discloses the use of sensors to measure the actual shape as specifically discussed above; however, fails to explicitly disclose the sensor is a distance sensor that traverses in the width direction. However KR 430, also in the art of correcting shape of a strip using electromagnets, discloses using sensors to measure the distance of the strip and generate a strip profile, i.e. shape (see abstract) and discloses that the sensors are arranged to traverse the strip (see Figure 1 and accompanying text). Therefore, taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified JP 309 taken with EP 939 or visa versa each with CN 111 to use the distance sensor that is arranged to traverse the substrate as such is taught by KR 430 as a known and suitable arrangement for sensor to measure the strip shape. A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Claim 9: JP 309 discloses the sensor is arranged between the stripping nozzle and the stabilizing device (Figure 5). EP 939 also discloses such at Figure 7. As this arrangement is conventional in the art, predictable results would have followed in providing the sensor between the stripping nozzle and the stabilization device.
Claim 10: KR 430 discloses the sensors are positions sensors (that measure the actual position of the metal strip) and such a disclosure is within the scope of the claim as drafted and therefore including such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to reap the benefits of sensing the position of the strip at the sensor location.
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 DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718