DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/02/2025 has been entered. Claims 10-29 remain pending in the application. Claims 19-29 have been withdrawn due to a restriction requirement. Claims 1-9 have been canceled. No new claims have been added. Applicant's amendments to the abstract have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 09/05/2025. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 09/05/2025. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 09/05/2025.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Amended claim 10 now contains the limitation “underlying contact conveyor element.” The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “underlying contact conveyor element.” The term “underlying” is not in the instant specification.
Amended claim 10 now contains the limitation “contact conveyor element.” The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “contact conveyor element.” The instant specification recites “a flexible use of chain conveyors or other contact elements is possible” (page 5, lines 34-35) but does not use the term “contact conveyor element”.
Amended claim 10 now contains the limitation “wherein the blanks have a lower surface that comprises deformations.” The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “wherein the blanks have a lower surface that comprises deformations.”
Amended claim 12 now contains the limitation “3-8 degrees from parallel toward the contact conveyor element.” While the instant specification recites “the flanges are bent out of their usual position by about 2 – 10°, preferably 3 to 8°, in particular 7° in the direction toward the contact element” and Fig. 3 shows bent flanges on “contact surfaces”, the instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “3-8 degrees from parallel toward the contact conveyor element” (emphasis added).
Amended claim 14 now contains the limitation “conveyor support strips.” The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “conveyor support strips.” The instant specification recites “the term contact element includes the above-mentioned conveying means as well as these support strips in chamber furnaces” (page 3, lines 31-32), but does not use the term “conveyor support strips”.
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.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 contains the limitations “the method further comprising pressing and quenching the blanks in a form hardening tool, causing correction of the deformations.” The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “the method further comprising pressing and quenching the blanks in a form hardening tool, causing correction of the deformations.”
Claims 11-18 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 10.
Claim 10 contains the limitations “so that only the free ends touch the contact conveyor element.” The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “so that only the free ends touch the contact conveyor element.” The instant specification recites “it is naturally also conceivable to embody the flat flange with corresponding point-shaped beads or linear beads, which likewise rest on the contact element only in small regions” (page 5, lines 25-27, emphasis added), “flanges resting on the contact element are bent with their free end or partial lengths thereof relative to the contact element so that they rest on it with the edge or with a partial length of the edge” (page 6, lines 6-10, emphasis added), “the flanges are formed so that the component rests on the chain conveyor with only the edge regions of the flanges” (page 8, lines 26-27, emphasis added). The instant specification does not provide support for “only the free ends touch the contact conveyor element”.
Claims 11-18 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 10, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2009/0211669 A1 of Vehof (as cited in prior Office action).
Regarding claim 10, Vehof teaches a method for producing quenched components consisting of sheet steel (Abstract, reads on the claimed method for producing a hardened steel sheet component). Vehof teaches cutting the blanks (step 1 in Fig. 16; “cutting the plates” in Fig. 16 reads on the claimed cutting steel sheet bars from a steel strip since “strip” and “plate” are synonyms), cold forming for example by means of deep-drawing (step 2 in Fig. 16, cold forming reads on the claimed cold forming), heating the blanks (step 4 in Fig. 16 reads on the claimed heating), and form hardening in a form hardening die where the component is cooled and hardened (step 5 in Fig. 16 reads on the claimed pressing and quenching the blanks in a form hardening tool) ([0091]-[0093], claim 1).
Vehof teaches the formed part travels through the furnace on the intermediate carrier; the intermediate carrier is provided to prevent the corrosion protection layer from being transferred to the rollers of the continuous furnace or being abraded by them during heating ([0045], this step reads on the claimed conveying the blanks through a furnace on an underlying contact conveyor element; the intermediate carrier has a contact conveyor element since it allows for transfer of the formed part).
Vehof teaches the parts are heated to a temperature greater than the austenitizing temperature of the alloy used ([0046], reads on the claimed heating the blanks in the furnace to a temperature above an austenization temperature).
Vehof teaches, during the forming in the cold state, i.e. during the deep-drawing, for example, a flange is produced in an intrinsically known fashion adjacent to the cold-preformed component and in the vicinity of the cut edge ([0040], [0051], reads on the claimed wherein the blanks have a lower surface that comprises deformations selected from at least one of point-shaped beads, linear beads, raised bumps, and flanges). Vehof further teaches the formed parts manufactured by the above-mentioned processes should be cold formed, with dimensions within the tolerance range that is required for the finished part by the customer ([0039], one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the method of Vehof can be applied to forming steel sheets into blanks of diverse shapes as required for a finished part).
Vehof further teaches the formed flange can be reshaped ([0051], [0088]). Vehof teaches, as seen in Fig. 17, that the flanges (31) can be bent along arrow 32 ([0088]). One of ordinary skill in the art understands the bent flanges result in point-based defects as seen in the bottom endpoint of the dashed line of Fig. 17. As seen in Fig. 17, the steel component (29) has flanges (31) which are bent. The steel component of Fig. 17 is transferred through the furnace on an intermediate carrier ([0045]) and therefore reads on the claimed only the free ends touch the contact conveyor element since only the ends of the bent flanges would rest on the intermediate carrier during processing.
Using the broadest reasonable interpretation for “free ends of flanges that are bent toward the contact conveyor element so that only the free ends touch the contact conveyor element”, the bent flanges of Vehof will rest on the intermediate carrier and therefore reads on the claimed wherein the blanks have a lower surface that comprises deformations selected from at least one of point-shaped beads, linear beads, raised bumps, and free ends of flanges that are bent toward the contact conveyor element so that only the free ends touch the contact conveyor element of claim 10 and the blanks touch the contact conveyor using only the deformations of claim 10.
Regarding the pressing and quenching steps of claim 10, Vehof teaches form hardening in a form hardening die where the component is cooled and hardened (step 5 in Fig. 16 reads on the claimed pressing and quenching the blanks in a form hardening tool) ([0091]-[0093], claim 1). Vehof further teaches by means of the form hardening, turns them into dimensionally accurate components ([0093], reads on the claimed causing correction of the deformations).
Vehof therefore reads on the limitation a method for producing a hardened steel sheet component, comprising the steps of: cutting steel sheet bars from a steel strip, or from a coil made of a hardened steel alloy; cold forming the steel sheet bars into steel component blanks; conveying the blanks through a furnace on an underlying contact conveyor element; and heating the blanks in the furnace to a temperature above an austenization temperature; wherein the blanks have a lower surface that comprises deformations selected from at least one of point-shaped beads, linear beads, raised bumps, and free ends of flanges that are bent toward the contact conveyor element so that only the free ends touch the contact conveyor element; and the blanks touch the contact conveyor using only the deformations, the method further comprising pressing and quenching the blanks in a form hardening tool, causing correction of the deformations of claim 10.
Regarding claims 13, Vehof teaches the formed part travels through the furnace on the intermediate carrier; the intermediate carrier is provided to prevent the corrosion protection layer from being transferred to the rollers of the continuous furnace ([0045], rollers read on the claimed wherein the contact conveyor elements comprise at least one of walking beams, chains, plates, and rollers).
Vehof therefore reads on the limitation wherein the contact conveyor elements comprise at least one of walking beams, chains, plates, and rollers of claim 13.
Regarding claim 17, Vehof teaches to carry out the method, the unhardened, galvanized special thin sheet is first cut into blanks ([0034], one of ordinary skill in the art understands a galvanized sheet is a zinc alloy coating and therefore the sheet of Vehof reads on the claimed metallic corrosion protection layer based on zinc or an alloy thereof).
Vehof therefore reads on the limitation wherein the steel strip or coil further comprises a metallic corrosion protection layer based on zinc, aluminum, or an alloy thereof of claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11, 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0211669 A1 of Vehof (as cited in prior Office action), as applied to claim 10 above, in view of “Section Rolling Types” of BIT (as cited in prior Office action).
Regarding claims 11, 12, 15 and 16, Vehof teaches the method of claim 10 as described above.
Vehof teaches the formed parts manufactured by the above-mentioned processes should be cold formed, with dimensions within the tolerance range that is required for the finished part by the customer ([0039], one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the method of Vehof can be applied to forming steel sheets into blanks of diverse shapes as required for a finished part). Vehof further teaches the formed flange can be reshaped ([0051], [0088]). Vehof teaches, as seen in Fig. 17, that the flanges (31) can be bent along arrow 32 ([0088]). One of ordinary skill in the art understands the bent flanges would result in point-based defects as seen in the bottom endpoint of the dashed line of Fig. 17.
While Vehof does not explicitly disclose wherein the deformations comprise free ends of flanges that are bent by about 2-10 degrees from parallel toward the contact conveyor element of claim 11, wherein the deformations comprise free ends of flanges that are bent by about 3-8 degrees from parallel toward the contact conveyor element of claim 12, wherein the deformations comprise point-shaped beads, linear beads or raised bumps that rest on the contact conveyor element of claim 15, wherein the point-shaped beads, linear beads or raised bumps extend by about 2-7 mm toward the contact conveyor element of claim 16, Vehof discloses adding flanges to the steel sheet being treated and reshaping the flange at various angles, as described above. It is noted, that there is no significant difference between the flange, bent flange, and point-shaped beads, linear beads or raised bumps, as claimed, as all shapes can be treated with the claimed method of cutting, cold forming, conveying, heating, and pressing and quenching the blanks. Further, bent flanges and point-shaped or linear beads resulting from bending steel are well known in the art (as taught by BIT in page 2, “bending can be performed on a range of steel shapes such as angle, tube, beam, bar, and more and sheet metal can be bent to match the needs of any project”, see figures in pages 1-2 and particularly Fig. #17 in page 1 for bent angles resulting in point-shaped deformations). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the flange of the steel blank of Vehof to include a bend, such as by the claimed bent by about 2-10 degrees from parallel, bent by about 3-8 degrees from parallel, extending by about 2-7 mm toward the contact conveyor element, or resulting in a point-shaped or linear bead, as such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
In this case, since Vehof teaches the method applies to steels of desired shapes and further teaches flanges that can be reshaped, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to apply the method of Vehof to a steel blank of any shape, including those taught by BIT.
Modified Vehof therefore reads on the limitations wherein the deformations comprise free ends of flanges that are bent by about 2-10 degrees from parallel toward the contact conveyor element of claim 11, wherein the deformations comprise free ends of flanges that are bent by about 3-8 degrees from parallel toward the contact conveyor element of claim 12, wherein the deformations comprise point-shaped beads, linear beads or raised bumps that rest on the contact conveyor element of claim 15, wherein the point-shaped beads, linear beads or raised bumps extend by about 2-7 mm toward the contact conveyor element of claim 16.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0211669 A1 of Vehof (as cited in prior Office action) in view of “Belt Furnace” of Surface Combustion (as cited in prior Office action).
Vehof teaches the method of claim 10 as described above.
Vehof teaches the formed part travels through the furnace on the intermediate carrier and is transferred to the rollers of the continuous furnace ([0045]). Vehof further teaches the parts travels by conveyor belt into a furnace ([0044]).
However, Vehof does not explicitly disclose wherein the contact conveyor elements comprises conveyor support strips.
Surface Combustion teaches a variety of belt furnaces supported by a series of rolls and which can hold products directly on mesh, cast link, flat wire, or chain conveyors (page 1; belt furnaces are continuous furnaces and the furnaces of Surface Combustion and Vehof are both continuous and use rolls or rollers) and is similarly concerned with hardening steel parts using a continuous furnace with conveying contact elements (pages 1 and 3; the Surface Processes section in page 3 teaches steel is typically used and the processes capable of being performed in a belt furnace line include hardening and reheating for press quenching, among others).
Surface Combustion teaches “flat-surface” belt furnaces may have cast alloy links, slats, or woven mesh belts, and “broken-surface” belt furnaces have troughs, flights, or channels to support and convey work through the furnace (page 1, Surface Solutions section, 1st paragraph; slats, troughs, flights, and channels read on the claimed “conveyor support strips” as best understood given the 112(b) rejection for claim 14 in this Office action). Since Vehof teaches a continuous furnace and Surface Combustion teaches slat type and broken-surface belt furnaces are possible configurations of continuous furnaces, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the furnace of Vehof and use the slat type or broken-surface furnace of Surface Combustion because Surface Combustion teaches that a known configuration of continuous furnaces, as taught by Vehof, is a slat type or broken-surface furnace with slats, troughs, flights, or channels to support and convey parts through the furnace. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. See MPEP § 2143 I. B.
Modified Vehof therefore reads on the limitation wherein the contact conveyor elements comprises conveyor support strips of claim 14.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0211669 A1 of Vehof (as cited in prior Office action) in view of WO 2014/114420 A1 of Kolnberger (as cited in prior Office action).
Regarding claim 18, Vehof teaches the method of claim 10, as described above.
Vehof teaches a method for manufacturing hardened components out of sheet steel (claim 1, [0001], [0022], one of ordinary skill in the art understands a boron-manganese steel is a steel).
Kolnberger is similarly concerned with a method for producing a hardened steel component comprising the steps of cutting a steel strip, heat treating, heating above an austenitizing temperature, and press hardening in a press-hardening tool (Abstract).
Regarding the specific type of steel used in the method of Vehof, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary steel alloys used in methods for processing hardenable steel sheet components. Kolnberger teaches the steel alloy used in processing hardenable steel sheet components is a boron-manganese steel such as 22MnB5 to ensure the quench hardening ([0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method of Vehof using the steel alloys taught by Kolnberger, in order to form a conventional hardenable steel sheet component using known and tested steel alloys predictably suitable for press hardening methods.
Additionally, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably select a boron-manganese steel such as 22MnB5, as taught by Kolnberger, to apply to the method of Vehof to form a hardened steel component by press hardening with a reasonable expectation of success.
Modified Vehof therefore reads on the limitation wherein the steel strip or coil comprises a boron-manganese steel of claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Vehof does not disclose: "wherein the blanks have a lower surface that comprises deformations selected from at least one of point-shaped beads, linear beads, raised bumps, and free ends of flanges that are bent toward the contact conveyor element so that only the free ends touch the contact conveyor element; and the blanks touch the contact conveyor element using only the deformations; the method further comprising pressing and quenching the blanks in a form hardening tool, causing correction of the deformations" (remarks, page 10).
In response, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. In this case, since Vehof teaches the claimed cutting, cold forming, conveying, and heating steps and further teaches bent flanges ([0051], [0088], Fig. 17, reads on claimed blanks have a lower surface that comprises deformations selected from at least one of point-shaped beads, linear beads, raised bumps, and free ends of flanges that are bent toward the contact conveyor element so that only the free ends touch the contact conveyor element; and the blanks touch the contact conveyor element using only the deformations) and obtaining dimensionally accurate components by means of form hardening ([0093], reads on claimed causing correction of the deformations), the method of Vehof reads on amended claim 10, as outlined in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in this Office action.
Applicant argues that none of the secondary references, alone or combined with Vehof, discloses or renders obvious the limitations of claim 10 since Vehof and each of the secondary references disclose permanent shapes (remarks, page 11). Applicant further argues that as recited in Applicant's claim 10, the deformations are only temporary and exists only to minimize contact between the steel blank and the underlying conveyor up to the time of the form hardening. The form hardening involves pressing and quenching the blanks in to a final form and, in the process, corrects the deformations so that the formed parts no longer include them (remarks, page 11).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., deformations are only temporary) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In this case, Vehof teaches the formed flange can be reshaped ([0051], [0088]) and therefore does not disclose permanent shapes, as argued by Applicant. Vehof further teaches by means of the form hardening, turns them into dimensionally accurate components ([0093], reads on the claimed causing correction of the deformations).
Furthermore, the limitation regarding correcting deformations of amended claim 10 does not have support in the instant disclosure as explained in the 112(a) rejection for claim 10 in this Office action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYELA ALDAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday: 10 am - 7 pm and alternate Friday: 10 am - 6 pm.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights