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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/05/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, and 9 are currently amended, Claims 2, 3, and 10 are as previously presented, Claims 5 and 7 are as originally filed, Claims 11-20 are withdrawn, and Claims 21 and 22 are new.
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 4-9 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 4 recites the limitation "the entire portion" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The entire portion” should be “the first portion” since the “entire portion” includes “a first portion and a second portion” in Claim 1, lines 3 and 4. see [0014, 0047-48, 0053].
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the entire portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The entire portion” should be “the first portion” since the “entire portion” includes “a first portion and a second portion” in Claim 1, lines 3 and 4. see [0014, 0047-48, 0053].
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the entire portion" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The entire portion” should be “the first portion” since the “entire portion” includes “a first portion and a second portion” in Claim 1, lines 3 and 4. see [0014, 0047-48, 0053]. The heat treatment assembly cannot be configured and dimensioned to be simultaneous if the entire portion is heated to a sub-solvus temperature and the second portion, which is part of the first portion, is heated to a super-solvus temperature.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the entire portion" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The entire portion” should be “the first portion” since the “entire portion” includes “a first portion and a second portion” in Claim 1, lines 3 and 4. see [0014, 0047-48, 0053]. The heat treatment assembly cannot be configured and dimensioned to be simultaneous if the entire portion is heated to a super-solvus temperature and the second portion, which is part of the first portion, is heated to a sub-solvus temperature.
Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 10, 21, and 22 are allowed.
Claims 4-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: JP S57-94524, cited in the previous office action, teaches a heating device for continuous annealing but does not suggest the furnace is configured to heat an entire portion of the metal component as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 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 D. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/Tima M. McGuthry-Banks/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights