DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 are pending, and claims 1-3 and 7 are currently under review.
Claims 4-6 and 8 are withdrawn.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 3/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 remain(s) pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueoka et al. (WO2019087805, machine translation referred to herein) in view of either one of Ondrovic et al. (US 2006/0207744) or Yoshimoto et al. (US 2019/0010564); and alternatively further in view of Yoshimoto et al. (US 2017/0327926, herein referred to as Yoshimoto et al. (‘926)).
Regarding claim 1, Ueoka et al. discloses a quenching apparatus for steels that is located downstream (ie. at an exit side) of a heating furnace (2), which one of ordinary skill would understand to be a continuous annealing furnace because the steel is depicted to be continuously fed through the furnace and quenching apparatus(1) [0015, 0020, fig.1]. Ueoka et al. further teaches that the quenching apparatus includes a plurality of pairs of upper and lower nozzles (6,7) that spray cooling water to quench both sides of the steel, in addition to a plurality of pairs of rollers (8,9) that restrain both surfaces of the steel within the quenching apparatus (ie. in a region from a cooling start to a cooling finish) [0020-0021, 0031-0032, 0038, fig.1].
The examiner notes that the recitation of “the restraining rollers are downstream of the martensitic transformation…” is an instance of functional language or intended use which merely recite the purpose of the rollers during martensitic transformation. See MPEP 2111.02 & MPEP 2173.05(g). One of ordinary skill would understand that martensitic transformation is determined by the degree of cooling which is controlled by the spray device and therefore “downstream of the martensitic transformation…” merely limits the function of the rollers rather than any actual structural, physical limitation of the claimed apparatus. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would be entirely capable of controlling cooling by spraying during rolling to control martensite transformation at particular locations throughout the cooling apparatus of Ueoka et al. as taught above. Nonetheless, Ueoka et al. expressly depicts said rollers to be located within a fast cooling region [fig.8-11], which corresponds to a cooling zone that is after a martensite start (ie. M transition line) before an end temperature of 400 degrees C which one of ordinary skill would readily understand to be generally above martensite finish temperatures [fig.3-4, 0071]. Alternatively, Yoshimoto et al. (‘926) discloses that it is known to utilize pinch rolls in an optimal location within a range of martensite start+150 degrees C to martensite finish-150 degrees C during quenching in order to reduce camber (ie. warpage) [abstract, 0028, fig.2]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the apparatus of the aforementioned prior art by utilizing pinch rolls within the specific temperature ranges of Yoshimoto et al. (‘926) for the aforementioned benefit. The examiner notes that the overlap between the range of Yoshimoto et al. (‘926) and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Ueoka et al. does not expressly teach that the rollers are arranged with a distance in a transporting region as claimed. However, the examiner submits that this feature would have been obvious in view of the prior art. Ondrovic et al. discloses that it is known to utilize pinch roller pairs to steer steel strips during continuous treatment [0004-0005]; wherein an offset distance between axes of said pinch rollers is set to be between 10 to 130 mm in a direction downstream of travel of the strip (ie. transporting direction) to desirably provide contact between the strip and rollers and achieve the ultimate goal of improving steering and processing capabilities [0005-0008, 0140]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the apparatus of Ueoka et al. by specifying an offset distance between roller pairs to be 10 to 130 mm for the aforementioned benefit taught by Ondrovic et al. Tthe examiner notes that the overlap between the distance of Ondrovic et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Alternatively, Yoshimoto et al. discloses that it is known to control continuous quenching of steel strips by controlling roller pair offset distance in the conveying direction (ie. transporting direction) during quenching to be from 40 to 150 mm to enhance shape correcting capability of the strip, which falls within the claimed range [abstract, 0040]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the apparatus of Ueoka et al. by specifying an offset distance taught by Yoshimoto et al. for the aforementioned benefit.
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the limitation of “…arranged so that the mist is sprayed…” is an instance of functional language which merely recites the function of the nozzles rather than any particular structure. Accordingly, the examiner notes that any nozzle structure that is capable of spraying coolant capable of achieving low temperatures between martensite start and martensite finish, including the nozzles of Ueoka et al., will reasonably meet the instant claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Nonetheless, Ueoka et al. expressly teaches that the quenching apparatus achieves martensitic transformation, which one of ordinary skill would recognize to naturally meet a temperature range because the martensite start temperature must naturally be reached in order to obtain martensite [0048].
Claim(s) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueoka et al. (WO2019087805, machine translation referred to herein) and others as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR20030047115, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claims 3 and 7, the aforementioned prior art discloses the apparatus of claims 1-2 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a dewatering spray nozzle as claimed. Kim et al. discloses that a device for cooling metal strips of a continuous annealing line [title]; wherein said device a drying device (120) located downstream of a cooling zone (110) (ie. downstream side of an exit), said drying device including several nozzles (12) for injecting air and removing cooling water from the steel [0016, 0024-0026, fig.1-2]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the apparatus of the aforementioned prior art by including a drying device after a cooling zone for removing water as taught by Kim et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ondrovic et al. or Yoshimoto et al. are relied upon to teach placement of the restraining rolls and these references do not teach the newly added limitations of the rolls being downstream of the martensite transformation start point, etc. In response, the examiner notes that the above secondary references are merely relied upon to teach the limitation of roll spacing, not roll placement. Ueoka et al. further teaches the newly added limitation of the rolls being downstream of the martensite transformation start point, etc. as stated above.
Applicant’s arguments are further moot in view of the alternative new grounds of rejection in view of Yoshimoto et al. (‘926) above.
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 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 NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights