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
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (USPGPub 2005/0115052).
Regarding claims 1-2, 8-9, 18 and 22, Takahashi teaches that it is known to alter the shape of a metal strip that is also hot-dip plated with molten metal using an apparatus comprising a bridle roll (unlisted item number shown in Fig. 4 as directly to the left of item 26 as further detailed in Fig. 6) and only one sink roll (item 6) wherein as shown in Fig. 4 the bridle roll as argued above and the sink roll are on the same side of the strip and a first fixed roll (item 24 as shown in Fig. 7C) and the bridle roll are on the same side of the roll with a second moveable roll (item 23) being movable in a direction intersecting a plane formed by the rotation axis of the bridle roll and the first fixed roll so as to perform penetration on the strip (as shown in Fig. 7C) opposite the direction provide by the sink roll. Takahashi is silent as to whether the first and second rolls are motor drive or not. However, Takahashi teaches that it is known to use motor driven rollers otherwise in his invention. Given a limited number of possibilities (i.e., the rolls are motor driven or not) and given the use of motorized rolls elsewhere in the same strip treatment device of Takahashi it would have been considered “obvious to try” at the time of invention to use motorized or non-motor driven rolls in the invention of Takahashi wherein either solution would be predictable and would be expected to function successfully based on the use of motors elsewhere in the invention of Takahashi.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Takahashi further teaches the use of a sensor device to detect the planarity of the strip that sends signals to a controller (see Fig. 5). It is not explicitly stated however that the controller is in any way linked to the system that allows for movement of the three rolls described above (items 22-24). However, the examiner is taking Official Notice to inform the applicant that it is commonplace to combine control systems within an apparatus into a singular control system for ease of access by a user allowing more total control from a singular location. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine all control system in the apparatus of Takahashi to allow for said control above. Further it is noted that the claims state that the signal is sent “to possibly adjust”. This does not reasonably require that the signal necessarily be sent “to adjust” or that the device in configured to necessarily provide adjustments.
Regarding claims 4 and 20, Takahashi further teaches the presence of what may be considered to be “air knifes” (i.e., gas wiping nozzles) (item 8 in Fig. 4) wherein said air knife is arranged in the apparatus in the location claimed.
Regarding claims 5-6 and 21, Takahashi further teaches the use of electromagnetic stabilizer devices (Fig. 5) in the location claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi further teaches wherein the detection device comprises a laser system [0129].
Regarding claims 10-16, the teachings of Takahashi are as shown above. Takahashi fails to explicitly teach the roll diameter ratios claimed and the distances between rolls claimed. However, Takahashi teaches that the diameter of the rolls employed controls how the strain is provided to the strip being moved through them [0058] and that the pushing distance between rolls is controlled in order to prevent push flaws [0038]. Therefore, in the absence of criticality of the specific ratios of rolls diameters and distances between rolls of Takahashi, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize both the sizes of rolls employed thereby controlling ratios between them as well as the distance between rolls in order to optimize strain levels and the amounts of defects in the invention of Takahashi. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 17, any roll prior to the bridle roll of Fig. 6 as described above may also be considered a bridle roll (Fig. 4).
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that the arrangement of device 21 of Takahashi is not considered to be between the last bridle roll, exiting the annealing further and the only one sink roll and therefore cannot read upon the current claims. However, first it should be noted that it is not claimed that the “last” bridle roll be the bridle roll of the current claims. The current claims do not require this limitation. Further the applicant is seemingly treating the claim language “exiting the annealing furnace” as reading only upon the point exactly where the metal strip exits the furnace. However, the claim language more broadly reads upon the state of the metal strip in motion. The strip is at all times entering some portion of the furnace and exiting some portion of the furnace. Further reasonably if a midpoint of the furnace were determined one might reasonably say that the strip was entering the furnace prior to the midpoint and exiting thereafter. Further, the device of Takahashi would reasonably read upon bending the metal strip as it exits the furnace using item 21, especially because items 21 is so far into the furnace (item 2). When the claim are interpreted more reasonably broad as explained, it remains the position of the examiner that the art of Takahashi is applicable to the current claims and the current rejection should be maintained.
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 ANDREW J BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 5:00AM-11:00AM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ANDREW J BOWMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717