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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/01/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection on 10/01/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 02/01/2023. These drawings are accepted.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-10, Claims 5 and 7, and Claims 11-20 are withdrawn.
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 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP S57-94524 A, based on the machine translation and original document.
JP S57-94524 A (JP ‘524) teaches a heating device with different heating rates installed in a heating zone for continuous annealing [0001] as represented below in FIGs. 2:
PNG
media_image1.png
306
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The device can operate in an unsteady state or change (pages 2 and 3), which reads on being capable of operating discretely. The metal component is represented by the metal strip [0001]. The first portion is the entire strip as represented in FIGs. 2 and the second portion is represented by the portion of the strip heated by the induction heating device. The induction heating device (“induction coil”) and radiant tube heating device in the heating zone (“furnace”) have different heating rates (page 2), which reads on a configuration and dimension of “selective heat treatment.” While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Additionally, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. In this case, the claimed limitation of “a single-step process” is an intended use of the claimed heat treatment assembly.
Regarding Claim 2, the radiant tube heating device in the heating zone and induction heating device are independent.
Regarding Claim 3, the radiant tube and induction heating devices are independent, which reads on different power supplies.
Regarding Claim 4, the induction heating device and radiant tube heating device have different heating rates (page 2) which reads on selective heat treatment. The limitations of achieving “location specific microstructure and mechanical properties” read on an intended use of the claimed assembly.
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, the temperature of the strip can be in an unsteady state or change (pages 2 and 3). TABLE 4 in the original document teaches different temperatures.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, the temperature of the strip can be in an unsteady state or change (pages 2 and 3). TABLE 4 in the original document teaches different temperatures. Regarding the claimed nickel-chromium alloy, this limitation refers to an intended use of the claimed assembly.
Regarding Claim 10, the induction heating device and radiant tube heating device in the heating zone read on a configuration and dimension of “selective heat treatment” as described above. In this case, the claimed limitation of “a single-step process” is an intended use of the claimed heat treatment assembly.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘524 as applied
to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Fortier et al in Computer Systems Performance and Prediction.
JP ‘524 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, JP ‘524 does not teach a hybrid modeling-test approach to achieve location specific microstructure and mechanical properties as claimed.
Fortier et al teaches in “Simulation Analysis” that simulations, to be effective, require a precise formulation of the system to be studied, correct translation of the formulation into a computer program, and interpretation of the results (page 251). Hybrid modeling incorporates features of the techniques on pages 256-261 with conventional programming languages (page 261). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply hybrid modeling with the system of JP ‘524, since Fortier et al teaches simulation provides a means to alter a model and observe the effects it has on a system’s behavior (page 251).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 and 6-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Anahid et al (US 20240254589) teaches a heat treatment assembly with first and second heating sources (abstract).
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 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