DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 6/17/26 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 8-12 remain pending in the application. Claim(s) 11-12 have been withdrawn. Claim(s) 5-7 have been canceled. New claim(s) 13-15 have been added. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(a) and (b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 3/17/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 8-10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 contains the limitation “wherein the annealing zone is the only zone in which thermal energy is actively supplied to the wire.” The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “wherein the annealing zone is the only zone in which thermal energy is actively supplied to the wire.” Claim 1 contains the limitation “wherein the recrystallization zone is configured to avoid cooling of the second wire portion such that residual heat retained in the second wire portion induces a second partial recrystallization in the recrystallization zone.” The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “wherein the recrystallization zone is configured to avoid cooling of the second wire portion such that residual heat retained in the second wire portion induces a second partial recrystallization in the recrystallization zone.” Claims 2-4, 8-10, and 13-15 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parenthesis. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohmuller et al. (US 5885523 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claim 1, Lohmuller teaches “a device for continuously heat-treating continuously cast or formed metallic goods, particularly wire and the like” (which reads on “a continuous annealer for wire for annealing and recrystallizing a metallic wire in a continuous process, comprising”; abstract). Lohmuller teaches that “the device comprises a first annealing path in which the continuously formed metallic goods are guided by means of two contact rollers, and that the first and second contact rollers are arranged at first and second ends, respectively, of the first annealing path” (which reads on “at least two contact disks configured such that a first contact disk contacts a rear end, as seen in a direction of travel of the wire, and a second contact disk contacts a front end, as seen in the direction of travel of the wire, of a first wire portion, extending between the first contact disk and the second contact disk; an annealing zone situated between the first contact disk and the second contact disk, wherein the annealing zone is configured such that the first wire portion passes through the annealing zone”; abstract). Lohmuller teaches that “the first and second contact rollers are connected to a voltage source such that a current flows through the continuously formed metallic goods between the first and second contact rollers” (which reads on “annealing means configured to supply thermal energy to the first wire portion in the annealing zone by passing electrical current through the first wire portion between the first contact disk and the second contact disk, such that the first wire portion undergoes a first partial recrystallization in the annealing zone”; abstract). Lohmuller teaches that “the device further comprises a second annealing path similar to the first annealing path” (which reads on “a recrystallization zone disposed downstream of the second contact disk, configured such that a second wire portion, which has previously passed through the annealing zone as the first wire portion, passes through the recrystallization zone”; abstract). Lohmuller teaches that “after processing, metals are usually subjected to an annealing treatment in order to recrystallize the structure” (column 1, lines 10-15). Lohmuller teaches that “by operating the switch 45, the device may be switched from two-path operation to three-path operation” (column 4, lines 33-39). Lohmuller teaches that “following the main annealing path, the wire is cooled with water” (which reads on “wherein the continuous annealer is devoid of a cooling device provided between the annealing zone and the recrystallization zone, and wherein the recrystallization zone is configured to avoid cooling of the second wire portion such that residual heat retained in the second wire portion induces a second partial recrystallization in the recrystallization zone”; column 1, lines 42-51; cooling is after the second or main annealing path (recrystallization zone)). Regarding limitations which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus, such as wherein the annealing zone is the only zone in which thermal energy is actively supplied to the wire, such that residual heat retained in the second wire portion induces a second partial recrystallization in the recrystallization zone, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 2, Lohmuller teaches the annealer of claim 1 as stated above. Lohmuller teaches that “the first contact roller is connected to a first potential, i.e. in the usually adopted DC voltage at the minus or the plus pole, and the second contact roller which is arranged at the end of the first annealing path is connected to the opposite second potential” (column 2, lines 36-45).
Regarding claim 4, Lohmuller teaches the annealer of claim 1 as stated above. Lohmuller teaches that “said main annealing path may be arranged in an inert gas atmosphere so as to prevent the wire from being oxidized” (column 1, lines 42-51). Lohmuller teaches that “the second path is a main annealing path” (column 1, lines 60-67).
Regarding claims 8-9, Lohmuller teaches the annealer of claim 1 as stated above. Lohmuller teaches that “preceding the contact roller K3, a water spraying means 12 is provided for cooling said wire” (column 3, lines 40-43). Lohmuller teaches that “following the main annealing path, the wire is cooled with water and thereafter in the third annealing path, i.e. the after-annealing path, is reheated again so as to remove the water and to dry the wire” (column 1, lines 42-51). Regarding the cooling medium, it is interpreted as contents of the apparatus. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 15, Lohmuller teaches the annealer of claim 4 as stated above. Lohmuller teaches that “said main annealing path may be arranged in an inert gas atmosphere so as to prevent the wire from being oxidized” (column 1, lines 42-51). Lohmuller teaches that “the inert gas atmosphere consists of water steam, however, instead also another usual inert gas may be used” (column 1, lines 42-51; water steam reads on water vapor). Lohmuller teaches that “the second path is a main annealing path” (column 1, lines 60-67).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohmuller et al. (US 5885523 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Massicot et al. (US 20170226609 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Lohmuller teaches the annealer of claim 1 as stated above. Lohmuller teaches that “the first contact roller is connected to a first potential, i.e. in the usually adopted DC voltage at the minus or the plus pole, and the second contact roller which is arranged at the end of the first annealing path is connected to the opposite second potential” (which reads upon “wherein the annealing means comprise heating means configured to heat the first wire portion”, as recited in the instant claim; column 2, lines 36-45).
Lohmuller is silent regarding wherein the annealing means comprise inductive heating means configured to inductively heat the first wire portion.
Massicot is similarly concerned with recrystallization annealing (abstract). Massicot teaches “recrystallization annealing in an annealing furnace” (which reads upon “wherein the annealing means comprise inductive heating means configured to inductively heat”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0009]). Massicot teaches that “the second heating step III is then conducted in the annealing furnace for inductive or conductive heating” (paragraph [0051]). Massicot teaches that “for performance of the annealing cycle according to FIG. 3(a), induction or conduction heating 5 is additionally arranged in the downstream area of holding zone 2.” (paragraph [0060]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Lohmuller to include induction heating, as taught by Massicot because Massicot teaches that either induction or conduction heating is suitable for recrystallization annealing. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohmuller et al. (US 5885523 A1), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Tsukamoto et al. (US 5458699 A).
Regarding claim 10, Lohmuller teaches the annealer of claim 9 as stated above. Lohmuller teaches that “preceding the contact roller K3, a water spraying means 12 is provided for cooling said wire” (column 3, lines 40-43).
A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01. Lohmuller is silent regarding a valve.
Tsukamoto is similarly concerned with rapid heating equipment (3), for example an induction heater, cooling equipment (2), for example water cooling equipment (column 6, lines 33-40). Tsukamoto teaches that “the wire rod is heated to a prescribed temperature by the rapid heating device such as an induction heater (3) as described above” (column 6, lines 50-63). Tsukamoto teaches that “it is then cooled to another prescribed temperature by a cooling device like the one described above” (column 6, lines 50-63). Tsukamoto teaches “controlling the cooling water flow, and adjusting the control valves at each roll stand in the micro-mill (5) in order to preserve the balance between heating of the wire rod by rolling and its cooling” (which reads upon “at least one apparatus for regulating the volumetric flow of the cooling medium in the cooling zone, wherein the apparatus includes at least one valve for introducing the cooling medium into the cooling zone and wherein the at least one valve is adjustable and designed as a proportional valve”, as recited in the instant claim; column 6, lines 50-53).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Lohmuller to include a control valve, as taught by Tsukamoto for controlling the cooling water flow.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohmuller et al. (US 5885523 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Niehoff (DE 10154823 A1), as machine translated.
Regarding claims 13, Lohmuller teaches the annealer of claim 1 as stated above.
A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01. Lohmuller is silent regarding a deflection roller. Deflection rollers have been well known in the art for decades.
Niehoff is similarly concerned with winding wires (paragraph [0001]). Niehoff teaches that “the invention aims to create a device of the generic type that is extremely precisely adjustable and thus avoids excessive stress on the material being wound” (paragraph [0006]). Niehoff teaches that “the compensating device A has a first deflecting roller 3 into which the strand 1 of the winding material enters and is deflected to a second deflecting roller 4, which is vertically spaced from the first deflecting roller 3” (which reads upon “wherein the first contact disk and/or the second contact disk is a rotatably mounted deflection roller for the wire”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0017]). Niehoff teaches that “the arrangement according to the invention makes it possible to achieve extremely sensitive and precise adjustment and maintenance of the desired tensile force, whereby even small differences in the tensile force deviation can be detected and used for adjustment” (paragraph [0022]). Niehoff teaches that “the invention is not limited to the embodiment shown, but is variable in many ways within the scope of the disclosure” (paragraph [0023]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify one or more contact rollers of Lohmuller to use be deflection rollers, as taught by Niehoff to control the tension in the wire.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohmuller et al. (US 5885523 A1) and Niehoff (DE 10154823 A1), as machine translated as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Aydinlioglu, Design Development And Production Of Electromagnetic Coils For Attitude Control Of A Pico Satellite, Diploma Thesis, Aachen, February 2006.
Regarding claims 14, Lohmuller teaches the annealer of claim 13 as stated above. A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01. Aydinlioglu teaches that deflection rollers are deliverable in four different variations “” (page 24). Aydinlioglu teaches that “the variations differentiate only in the milled groove” (page 24). Aydinlioglu teaches that “the deflection roller are deliverable with edged groove, V-grooved, round groove and without any groove” (page 24). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose deflection rollers with edged groove, V-grooved, or round groove, as taught by Aydinlioglu to guide the wire.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that as recited in amended independent claim 1, the annealing zone is the only zone in which thermal energy is actively supplied to the wire (remarks, page 9). Applicant argues that moreover, the continuous annealer is devoid of a cooling device provided between the annealing zone and the recrystallization zone and the recrystallization zone is configured to avoid cooling of the second wire portion such that residual heat retained in the second wire portion induces a second partial recrystallization in the recrystallization zone (remarks, page 9). Applicant further argues that as discussed herein, the cited references whether considered individually or as applied in the rejections, fail to disclose, teach or suggest at least the features of "wherein the annealing zone is the only zone in which thermal energy is actively supplied to the wire;" "wherein the continuous annealer is devoid of a cooling device provided between the annealing zone and the recrystallization zone" and "wherein the recrystallization zone is configured to avoid cooling of the second wire portion such that residual heat retained in the second wire portion induces a second partial recrystallization in the recrystallization zone" as claimed (remarks, page 9). This is not found convincing because wherein the annealing zone is the only zone in which thermal energy is actively supplied to the wire and wherein the recrystallization zone is configured to avoid cooling of the second wire portion such that residual heat retained in the second wire portion induces a second partial recrystallization in the recrystallization zone are considered the manner of operating said device. Lohmuller teaches that “following the main annealing path, the wire is cooled with water” (column 1, lines 42-51; cooling is after the second or main annealing path (recrystallization zone)). Additionally, the Examiner notes that Omission of an Element and Its Function Is Obvious if the Function of the Element Is Not Desired, see MPEP 2144.04 II. A. Thus even if Lohmuller did teach a cooling device provided between the annealing zone and the recrystallization zone, removal of the cooling device is obvious if cooling is not desired at that location.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q4: 9/21-9/30/26; Q1: 1/4-1/8/27.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights