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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 2 in the reply filed on 11/19/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden between. This is not found persuasive because the structure of the first invention can be used in a materially different method than the claimed method claims, and different fields of search are required, establishing a serious search burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10, 12-13, 15-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiroshi et al. (JPS5794524A).
Regarding Claims 10 and 12, Hiroshi teaches a method of heating a strip by installing plural heating devices in a continuous (single step) heating device with different heating rates in different sections where the heating of both sections occurs simultaneously [0001]; Hiroshi teaches one section may be heated by induction heating coils (9) (Figure 2a, 2b, 2c) where the other sections of the strip are simultaneously heated with a radiant tube heating device (furnace heating) (7) [0002]; as shown in Figures 2a-c below, one portion of the metal component is partial portion, and the rest of the component is the other portion. The method essentially involves placing the first portion in the radiant tube heating source and positioning the induction heating coil in place relative to the second, partial portion of the component and is considered a coil-in-furnace configuration as required by claim 12
PNG
media_image1.png
260
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, the heating surface are considered configured and dimensioned to provide selective heat treatment to the respective portions in a single step process, resulting in location specific microstructure and properties in the first and second portions during operation.
Regarding Claims 15-16 and 18, the heating sources heat the portions to different temperatures with a higher heating rate [0001]
PNG
media_image2.png
268
629
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi et al. (JPS5794524A).
Regarding Claim 11, Hiroshi is silent regarding whether the first and second heating sources are independent of one another and whether each is in communication with respective power supplies. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to independently power and control the heating sources for the purpose of ensuring uniform and even heating throughout the heat treatment process.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi et al. (JPS5794524A) in view of Asadzadeh et al. ("Hybrid modeling of induction hardening processes." Applications in Engineering Science 5 (2021): 100030.)
Regarding Claim 14, Hiroshi is silent regarding whether a hybrid modeling-test approach was used to achieve location specific microstructure and mechanical properties of the portions of the metal component, however, Asadzadeh teaches a method of modeling an induction hardening process where hybrid-modeling is used which combines observation and physical knowledge; for the purpose of approximating experimental data better and where the hybrid model can be used as a prediction tool to operate and optimize induction heating processes (abstract); therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the heating process of Hiroshi with a hybrid-modeling approach for the purpose of approximating experimental data such as product microstructure better.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi et al. (JPS5794524A) in view of Mathey (US5312497)
Regarding Claim 17, Hiroshi is silent regarding the product being a Ni-Cr product and is silent regarding if the two heating sections perform sub and super solvus heating. However, Mathey teaches a method of forming nickel-based superalloy articles where different regions can have different properties; heating above the solvus temperature is done to provide a coarse grain microstructure while the remaining is kept below the solvus temperature to keep a fine grain microstructure to have the first region with good fatigue growth rate and second region with a good tensile properties (Abstract); therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the method of Hiroshi to form Ni-Cr products with different microstructure regions for the purpose of forming a product with different mechanical properties in different areas which can be used for different applications such as high temperature application like turbine parts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICARDO D MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-6691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 am- 4 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 5712726297. 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.
/RICARDO D MORALES/Examiner, Art Unit 1738