DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 and 4-22 are pending and currently under review.
Claims 2-3 are cancelled.
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 § 112
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 and 4-22 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites that the term “strip-type”, which is indefinite because it is unclear as to what further structure, if any, is required by the term “type”. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(E). It is unclear as to what the term “type” is intended to convey. The examiner interprets the claim scope to be met by any structure that would be considered to be a strip.
Claim 9 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 9 recites that the “tensile stress is generated to ebb and flow over time”, which is indefinite because it is unclear to the examiner as to what “ebb and flow” is mean to convey. The examiner notes that tensile stress is a quantitative value and it is unclear as to how tensile stress can “ebb and flow”. The examiner interprets this limitation to mean that the tensile stress varies during treatment.
Claims 11-12 and 21-22 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 11 and 21 recite a second intermediate cooling temperature of 600 to 700 degrees C, which is indefinite because claims 11 and 21 depend upon claims 10 and 20, which recite first cooling temperature ranges of 200 to 1100 degrees C and 400 to 900 degrees C, respectively. The temperature ranges of claims 10 and 20 have broader lower limits than the ranges of claims 11 and 21, and so it is unclear to the examiner as to how a cooling can be performed from a lower temperature (as allowed for in claims 10 and 20) to a higher temperature.
Claims 13-14 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 13 recites the term “consisting”, which is close-ended and limits the claim scope to only the recited features. However, claim 13 further recites “mainly hydrogen” and “more than 99%” of hydrogen, which implies that other non-recited features can be included in addition to hydrogen, which is contrary to the term “consisting”. The examiner interprets the claim to allow for other non-recited features based on broadest reasonable interpretation.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11-12 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 11 and 21 recite a second intermediate cooling temperature of 600 to 700 degrees C. However, claims 11 and 21 are dependent upon claims 10 and 20, which recite first cooling temperature ranges of 200 to 1100 degrees C and 400 to 900 degrees C, respectively. Accordingly, claims 11 and 21 fail to further limit the scope of claims 10 and 20 because claims 11 and 21 allow for temperatures which would require “cooling” from a lower temperature to a higher temperature, which is contrary to cooling. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2015/0361521) in view of Taniguichi et al. (JPH01234525, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi et al. discloses a method of continuously annealing a steel strip [abstract, 0001]; wherein said method includes conducting heat treatment on a steel sheet through a continuous, vertical annealing furnace having a heating zone, soaking zone, and cooling zone [fig.1-3]. The steel sheet of Takahashi et al. is moved from a lower furnace entry by rollers (26) located in an upper region of the furnace towards an exit region in the lower region of the furnace, said heating and soaking zones located between the entry of the furnace and rollers located at the end of the furnace [0025, fig.1-3].
Takahashi et al. does not expressly teach a tensile stress of that the steel sheet is a non-oriented steel as claimed. Taniguichi et al. discloses that it is known to desirably anneal non-oriented, cold-rolled steel sheets using vertical continuous annealing furnaces to achieve good properties [p.1-2]. This is achieved by controlling a tension in steel sheet during annealing to be less than 1 kg/mm2 such that distortion is avoided [p.1-2]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Takahashi et al. by specifically annealing non-oriented steel under the aforementioned tension for the aforementioned benefits. The examiner notes that the overlap between the tension of Taniguichi et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Taniguchi et al. further teaches that the non-oriented steel has about 4 percent by weight or less of Si, which overlaps with the claimed range and meets the limitation of “siliceous” steel [p.2]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the above tension range of Taniguchi et al. further overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 16, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Takahashi et al. further teaches a step of galvanizing after heat treatment, wherein galvanizing is depicted to have the steel sheet travel vertically out of the bath [0025-0027, fig.1,3].
Claim(s) 4, 7, 10-12, 15, and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2015/0361521) and Taniguichi et al. (JPH01234525, machine translation referred to herein) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (US 2012/0298267).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a heating temperature as claimed. Hu et al. discloses continuous annealing of non-oriented, cold rolled steel sheets [abstract]; wherein heating is performed to a temperature of 800 to 1000 degrees C to achieve desired properties [0003, 0036-0037, 0055]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by utilizing the heating parameters of Hu et al. for the aforementioned benefits. Alternatively, the examiner notes that all of the limitations are disclosed by the prior art, although not necessarily in a single reference, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the teachings of the prior art to arrive at the predictable result of an annealing line (disclosed by the aforementioned prior art) utilizing the specific parameters of Hu et al. to obtain a non-oriented steel composition having desired properties taught by Hu et al. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). In either situation, the examiner notes that the overlap between the heating range of Hu et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Hu et al. further teaches annealing and holding at 5 to 60 seconds, which overlaps with the claimed ranges [0036-0037]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 10-12 and 20-22, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Hu et al. further teaches first and second cooling, wherein first cooling is performed down to at least 650 degrees C at 3 to 10 degrees C per second, followed by second cooling to less than 100 degrees C at 20 to 70 degrees C per second [0036-0037]. The examiner notes that Takahashi et al. discloses an annealing line furnace having first and second cooling zones, such that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform said first cooling and second cooling (ie. down to less than 100 degrees C at 20 to 70 degrees C per second) of Hu et al. in the respective zones of Takahashi et al. Accordingly, the examiner notes that cooling between the soaking zone (16) (ie. holding region) and the roller in (18) and after the roller in (18) of Takahashi et al. is in the first cooling zone (18) and cools down to 650 degrees C at 3 to 10 degrees C per second, which overlaps with the claimed ranges of a first and second intermediate temperature. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The examiner notes that the second cooling at 20 to 70 degrees C per second in the second zone (20) of the prior art overlaps with the claimed second section cooling. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 15, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Hu et al. further teaches a cold-rolled thickness of 0.5 mm [0061].
Regarding claim 17, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Hu et al. further teaches a steel composition as seen in table 1 below [0010-0023]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the steel composition of Hu et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Table 1.
Element (wt.%)
Claim 17 (wt.%)
Hu et al. (wt.%)
Si
1.5 – 6
2.5 – 4
Al
0.05 – 2
0.2 – 0.8
C
0 – 0.01
0 – 0.004
Mn
0.05 – 5
0 – 0.5
P
0.01 – 0.2
0 – 0.3
S
0 – 0.01
0 – 0.002
N
0 – 0.01
0 – 0.003
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2015/0361521) and Taniguichi et al. (JPH01234525, machine translation referred to herein) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zaizen et al. (US 2015/0059929).
Regarding claims 5-6, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not specify a heating rate as claimed. Zaizen et al. discloses an annealing method for non-oriented steel sheets [abstract]; wherein said annealing includes controlling the heating rate during annealing of the cold-rolled sheet to include a first rapid heating rate of not less than 100 degrees C per second to a recrystallization temperature, followed by a second heating to the annealing temperature of 800 to 1100 degrees C at a rate of 1 to 50 degrees C to achieve desirable grains and steel properties [0010, 0055-0057]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by following the heating rate pattern of Zaizen et al. for the aforementioned benefit. The examiner notes that the overlap between the heating rates of Zaizen et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2015/0361521) and Taniguichi et al. (JPH01234525, machine translation referred to herein) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN103468922, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claim 9, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not specify varying tension during annealing as claimed. Li et al. discloses that it is known to actively adjust tension of the steel sheet in an annealing line to avoid buckling and deformation in real time [0005, 0009]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by performing real time, active adjustment of tension for the aforementioned benefit. The examiner notes that real time adjustment of tension would naturally result in varying of the tension (ie. ebbing and flowing) as claimed.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2015/0361521) and Taniguichi et al. (JPH01234525, machine translation referred to herein) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN107164690, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claims 13-14, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach an atmosphere as claimed. Zhang et al. discloses that it is known to utilize a protective atmosphere of pure hydrogen with a dew points controlled to be less than -30 degrees C (ie. 100% hydrogen) when performing annealing on a cold-rolled, non-oriented steel sheet [0002, 0015, 0020, 0047]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by utilizing the atmosphere of Zhang et al. for the aforementioned benefit. The examiner notes that the overlap between the ranges of Zhang et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734