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
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 18 November 2025.
Claims 1-16 are under examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-16 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.
The term “high-speed wire rolling” in claim 1is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-speed wire rolling” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
There is no definition as wo what would or would not constitute a “high-speed” rolling process (as opposed to “slow” speed?). In the specification it is noted that the speed is “preferably” 100-110 m/s. However this is not considered to be a definition as to what speed would or would not be considered as a “high-speed” wire rolling. The point of infringement of claim 1 cannot be determined, and the claim is indefinite.
Each of claims 2-16 depends from claim 1 and is also indefinite.
The presence of a trademark or trade name in a claim is not, per se, improper under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, but the claim should be carefully analyzed to determine how the mark or name is used in the claim. It is important to recognize that a trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and is not the name of the goods themselves. Thus a trademark or trade name does not define or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. See definitions of trademark and trade name in MPEP § 608.01(v). If the trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982).
Claim 1 states that a temperature-controlled cooling is caried out by a Stelmor cooling line. The trade name of Stelmor for the cooling line appears to be owned by Primetals Technologies. It is not clear what would or would not be considered a suitable cooling line for carrying out the invention, and it is not clear whether the “Stelmor” cooling line is a source of cooling lines or consider dot be a specific cooling line offered by the company, having the four fans required in the claim.
A similar reference is made in claim 16. Other portions of claim 1 and dependent claims 13-16 appear to reference specific portions of the specific cooling line, which further raises a question as to what cooling lines would or would not fit in the metes and bounds of the claims.
The point of infringement of claim 1 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Each of claims 2-16 depends from claim 1 and is indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "starting 1st to 4th fans with air quantities of 80% to 100%." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear what “air quantities of 80% to 100% means.” Does this mean an air volume per time relative to a capacity of the fan? Does this mean an air volume per time, relative to a setting on the fan? Does it refer to an air speed, or to an area of the fan? The point of infringement of claim 1 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Each of claims 2-16 depends from claim 1 and is indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "closing the rest fans." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear what “the rest fans” are. Does this mean any fans that are not the 1st to 4th fans are “closed?” If a 5th fan were started, but the rest closed, does this meet the claim limitation or not? How many fans on the Stelmor cooling line are closed? Additionally it is not clear what “closed” means in this context. The point of infringement of claim 1 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Each of claims 2-16 depends from claim 1 and is indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim 5 recites that a “heat preservation is performed.” It is not clear what would or would not meet the limitations of performing heat preservation. The step is described verbatim only. Would merely storing the ingot at room temperature fall under “preserving” the heat? When a claim limitation employs functional language, the examiner’s determination of whether the limitation is sufficiently definite will be highly dependent on context (e.g., the disclosure in the specification and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art). Halliburton Energy Servs., 514 F.3d at 1255, 85 USPQ2d at 1663. In this case it is not clear what actions would achieve the required function of performing heat preservation.
Claim 15 recites “using optiflex.” It is not clear what is “optiflex.” It is believed that this is a trade name of features appearing in the Stelmor equipment. As such the functions, structures, and nature of the “optiflex” feature can be variable, and the feature is also subject to change.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 103717326 A (hereinafter “Nippon”), in view of CN 110230008 A (hereinafter “Jiangsu”). English translations were submitted by applicant, which are relied upon herein.
Regarding claim 1, it is noted that the claim is indefinite. Please see discussion above in the rejections under 35 USC 112.
Nippon describes a wire rod for a high strength wire (see Description). Nippon describes that a wire of tensile strength greater than 2000 MPa is known in the art (see Background Technology on p. 2 of translation). Nippon teaches that the rod has composition overlapping the claimed composition (see pp. 5-6 of English translation). The composition of the wire rod of Nippon is compared with the claimed composition in the chart below (all values in mass percent).
Element
Claim 1
Nippon (pp. 5-6)
C
Si
Mn
Cr
Either or both of B and V:
B
V
Fe
Impurities:
Al
Ti
S
P
O
N
1.01-1.10
0.15-0.40
0.30-0.60
0.01-0.40
0.0005-0.0020
0.01-0.09
Balance
≤0.003
≤0.0008
≤0.005
≤0.008
≤0.0010
≤0.0020
0.60-1.15
0.30-1.30
0.25-0.90
Below 0.40
Below 0.0030
Below 0.40
Balance
--
--
--
--
--
--
The lack of a teaching of the amounts of impurities reads on essentially zero of these elements, overlapping the claimed ranges. In the alternative, Purer forms of known products may be patentable, but the mere purity of a product, by itself, does not render the product nonobvious. The purification of the steel, by itself, is not considered to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.04 VII.
The composition of Nippon overlaps the claimed compositional ranges, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for the ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to have selected a composition in the range as claimed because Nippon teaches the same utility over an overlapping range. Applicant is further directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Nippon does not teach the claimed processing method for the steel wire rod.
Jiangsu teaches a wire rod manufacturing process for high strength wire
rod (see claims 8-15). Jiangsu teaches that the process is used to control inclusions and to reduce segregation in the steel, which Improves strength (see p. 3 of translation). Jiangsu teaches that the process creates wire rod of strength greater than or equal to 4500 MPa (see page 3).
Jiangsu teaches a step of vacuum induction melting to form ingot (claim Jiangsu teaches that a suitable pressure for a vacuum melting process is 0.01-1 Pa (see p. 4 or translation), overlapping the claimed range and establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Jiangsu teaches a step of remelting using electroslag remelting in protective argon (see p. 5 or Embodiment 1). Jiangsu teaches a step of forging the ingot to a rod, and removing the oxide skin off the surface, meeting the limitation of “grinding” in this case (see Embodiment 1 on p. 6 or Embodiment 2 on p. 7). Jiangsu teaches a step of rolling the steel at temperature of 900-1100 C (see claim 8). This is considered to overlap both the heating temperature and finish rolling temperature, as these are the rolling temperatures cited in the art. The selection of the appropriate rolling temperatures within the range overlapping that of the prior art would have required no more than a routine investigation of the process disclosed by Jiangsu. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding the cooling step, it is noted that the step is indefinite. Jiangsu teaches a step of controlled cooling using a Stelmor cooling control (see p 5 and Embodiment 1 on p 6). This is believed to match the claimed cooling step. The selection of various settings on the Stelmor cooling line (such as fan settings in the line) would have required no more than a routine investigation of the process disclosed in Jiangsu.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have altered the invention of Nippon, as by applying the method of production taught by Jiangsu (cited above), because Jiangsu teaches that the process is used to control inclusions and to reduce segregation in the steel, which Improves strength (see p. 3 of translation). The substitution of known elements in the art to yield a predictable result would have been obvious to the skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 2, Jiangsu teaches a step of vacuum induction melting to form ingot (claim Jiangsu teaches that a suitable pressure for a vacuum melting process is 0.01-1 Pa (see p. 4 or translation), overlapping the claimed range and establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 3, Nippon teaches a composition overlapping the composition as claimed (see discussion above). Jiangsu teaches that the alloying elements desired are added to the steel to form the composition (See First Embodiment on p 5).
Regarding claim 4, Jiangsu teaches that the steel is heated to 1600 prior to casting (See First Embodiment on p 5).
Regarding claim 5, the claim is indefinite. See discussion above. Jiangsu teaches to remelt the ingot (see First Embodiment on p 5).Jiangsu teaches that a homogenization heat treatment is applied (See First Embodiment on p 5).
Regarding claim 6, Nippon in view of Jiangsu is applied as stated above. No description is made as to the size and shape of the forged billet. However a mere difference in the size or shape of the forged product is not considered to patentably distinguish over the prior art. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). in this case the same forging is used for a wire rolling process in order to create wire of high strength, and the shape and the size of billet would have been resolved by the skilled artisan through a routine investigation.
Regarding claim 7, Jiangsu teaches that forging is at 1140-1160 C (see First Embodiment on p 5).
Regarding claims 8-9, Jiangsu teaches a step of forging the ingot to a rod, and removing the oxide skin off the surface, meeting the limitation of “grinding” in this case (see Embodiment 1 on p. 6 or Embodiment 2 on p. 7). The depth of the removal of the oxide and parameters therefore would have been determine by the skilled artisan through a routine investigation of the process of Jiangsu.
Regarding claim 10, Jiangsu teaches to roll wire rod of 5.5 mm (see First Embodiment on p 5).
Regarding claim 12, Jiangsu teaches that a rolling temperature is 900-1100 C (see p. 5), overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 13-15, Jiangsu teaches that the Stelmor cooling is used (see p 5 and Embodiment 1 on p 6). The use of specific settings in regard to the equipment would have been a matter of routine investigation for the skilled artisan.
Conclusion
NO claims are allowable. No art rejections are made for claims 10 and 16 at this time.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 3711918 A is considered exemplary of what would be understood by the skilled artisan as a “Stelmor” cooling process. Note that there is no mention of “heat preservation,” “fans” or “optiflex.”
US 20200048731 A1 is considered exemplary of prior art wire rod manufacturing including an overlapping steel composition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1759