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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 09/11/2023. Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been examined. The preliminary amendment submitted on 09/11/2023 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 should read as “[[a]]the thickness of the plating layer of the plated steel sheet at a time this after the plating layer forming process…”.
Claim 5 should read as “[[a]]the thickness of the plating layer of the plated steel sheet after the grinding process is measured…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Note: Whenever the claims indicated inclusive (and) or alternative (or) limitations, only the alternative limitations were examined unless stated different in the rejection. Similarly, whenever the claims indicated optional limitations (e.g. “optionally"), the claim limitations were considered to be a preference and not a requirement unless stated different in the claim rejection.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a plating apparatus for performing hot-dip plating or electroplating to form a plating layer on a surface of a steel sheet to produce a plated steel sheet” in claim 12. Where in the instant case, the plating apparatus is interpreted per the applicant’s disclosure in pp’s 0051-0052 and figs 2 or 3, to include the following: electrogalvanizing apparatus (200) in fig 2 or hot-dip galvanizing apparatus (210) in fig 3.
“a grinding apparatus that is arranged downstream of the plating apparatus, and that grinds a surface of the plating layer of the plated steel sheet to form a texture on the surface of the plating layer” in claim 12. Where in the instant case, the grinding apparatus is interpreted per the applicant’s disclosure in pp’s 0053-0057 and fig 4 to include the following: abrasive belt (33), transfer rolls (31), contact rolls (32).
“a first plating thickness determination apparatus that determines first plating thickness information relating to a thickness before the grinding of the plating layer, and outputs the first plating thickness information” in claim 12. Where in the instant case, the first plating thickness determination apparatus is interpreted per the applicant’s disclosure in pp 0060 to include the following: fluorescent x-ray film thickness meter, voltmeter, ammeter, ion meter, thermometer, and/or gas pressure meter.
“a second plating thickness determination apparatus that is arranged downstream of the grinding apparatus, and that determines second plating thickness information relating to a thickness of the plating layer that has been ground, and outputs the second plating thickness information” in claim 12. Where in the instant case, the second plating thickness determination apparatus is interpreted per the applicant’s disclosure in pp 0060 to include the following: fluorescent x-ray film thickness meter, voltmeter, ammeter, ion meter, thermometer, and/or gas pressure meter.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 4-10, 12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn et al (US PGPUB No. 2010/0136362), in view of Pleuger et al (US PGPUB No. 2022/0305616), hereinafter referred to as Hahn and Pleuger, respectively.
Regarding claim 1 (Original), Hahn discloses a method for producing a textured plated steel sheet, comprising:
a plating layer forming process of forming a plating layer on a surface of a steel sheet by an electroplating method or a hot-dip plating method to produce a plated steel sheet [Hahn, page 2, pp 0023, hot-dip coating line to form 25 and page 5, pp 0042, can also be electroplating];
a grinding process of grinding a surface of the plating layer of the plated steel sheet to form a texture on the surface of the plating layer [Hahn, fig 3, and page 2, pp 0024, 23 is a grinding process to texture 25];
a plating thickness determining process of determining a differential plating thickness information relating to a thickness of the plating layer of the plated steel sheet between a second amount before grinding and a first amount after grinding [Hahn, page 5, pp 0037 “inspection of the polished test sheet” and “accordingly, about 20% of the as-coated surface … was lost during polishing to a stainless steel appearance”]; and
an adjusting process of adjusting a plating amount of the plating layer that is formed in the plating layer forming process and a grinding amount of the surface of the plating layer that is ground in the grinding process, based on the differential plating thickness information [Hahn, page 5, pp 0037, “the embossed intermediate coated sheet product traveled from the embossing operation to the polishing operation where belt motors were individually adjusted to selected tune each polishing belt … such a belt standby condition facilities rapid belt changes if one of the on-line belts needs to be replaced due to unexpected damage, wear, or metal pickup”, further the condition of adjusting processing of adjusting a plating amount of the plating layer allows for maintaining the plating amount and this is how this is interpreted].
Hahn does not explicitly disclose the plating thickness determining process of determining first plating thickness information relating to a thickness of the plating layer of the plated steel sheet at a time that is after the plating layer forming process and is before the grinding process, and second plating thickness information relating to a thickness of the plating layer of the plated steel sheet after the grinding process; and the adjusting process based on the first and second plating thickness information.
Pleuger teaches a grinding process of grinding a surface of a workpiece [Pleuger, page 1, pp 0010];
a thickness determining process of determining first thickness information relating to a thickness of the layer of the workpiece at a time that is before the grinding process [Pleuger, page 2, pp’s 0018-0019, sensors that take measurement data before the grinding process, such as temperature sensors], and second thickness information relating to a thickness of the workpiece after the grinding process [Pleuger, page 2, pp’s 0018-0019, sensors that take measurement data after the grinding process, such as temperature sensors]; and
an adjusting process of adjusting a workpiece parameter on the workpiece and a grinding amount of the surface of the workpiece that is ground in the grinding process, based on the first and second thickness information [Pleuger, page 4, pp’s 0039 and 0040, teaching a neural network used to analyze state information and the output to control the grinder and page 5, pp 0045 teaching that the neural network uses a property of the workpiece].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the neural network and the adjusting process of Pleuger into the controller of Hahn in order to measure before and after the grinding process and to adjust the parameters based upon the differences in the sensor data about the workpiece because using the neural network is able to better control the monitor the influencing variables to achieve a grinding result of a higher quality [Pleuger, page 1, pp 0004, summarized].
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Hahn as modified further discloses the method for producing a textured plated steel sheet according to claims 1, wherein,in the plating thickness determining process: the thickness of the plating layer of the plated steel sheet at a time that is after the plating layer forming process and is before the grinding process is measured, and the thickness that is measured is adopted as the first plating thickness information [Hahn, page 5, pp 0037 and Pleuger, page 2, pp 0018, teaching that there is a measurement before grinding, but after the plating layer forming].
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), Hahn as modified further discloses the method for producing a textured plated steel sheet according to claim 1, wherein, in the plating thickness determining process: the thickness of the plating layer of the plated steel sheet after the grinding process is measured, and the thickness that is measured is adopted as the second plating thickness information [Hahn, page 5, pp 0037 and Pleuger, page 2, pp 0018, teaching that there is a measurement after grinding].
Regarding claim 6 (Currently Amended), Hahn as modified further discloses the method for producing a textured plated steel sheet according to claims 1, wherein:in the plating layer forming process, the plating layer is formed by the electroplating method [Hahn, page 5, pp 0042, can be electroplating]; and in the plating thickness determining process, the first plating thickness information is determined based on, in the plating layer forming process, a metal ion concentration in a plating solution, a line speed of the steel sheet into the plating solution, a width direction length of the steel sheet, a current density, a current efficiency, and/or a temperature of the plating solution [Pleuger, page 2, pp 0018 teaching the measurement before the grinding using a temperature sensor].
Regarding claim 7 (Currently Amended), Hahn as modified further discloses the method for producing a textured plated steel sheet according claims 1, wherein: in the plating layer forming process, the plating layer is formed by the hot-dip plating method [Hahn, page 2, pp 0023, hot-dip coating line to form 25]; and in the plating thickness determining process, the first plating thickness information is determined based on, in the plating layer forming process, a line speed of the steel sheet into a plating bath, an impact pressure of a wiping gas, and/or a rolling reduction at a skin pass mill [Hahn, page 4, pp 0033].
Regarding claim 8 (Currently Amended), Hahn as modified further discloses the method for producing a textured plated steel sheet according to claims 1, further comprising: a coating film forming process of forming a coating film of the surface of the plated steel sheet after the grinding process [Hahn, page 7, pp 0043].
Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended), Hahn as modified further discloses the method for producing a textured plated steel sheet according to claims 1, further comprising: an appearance evaluating process of evaluating an appearance of the plated steel sheet after the grinding process based on a glossiness of the surface of the plated steel sheet after the grinding process [Hahn, page 3, table A and page 4, pp 0036 and table B teaches the evaluation of the sheet after to ensure that the appearance is that of stainless steel].
Regarding claim 10 (Original), Hahn as modified further discloses the method for producing a textured plated steel sheet according to claim 9, wherein: in the appearance evaluating process, an appearance of the plated steel sheet is evaluated based on two glossinesses which are a glossiness of the surface of the plated steel sheet that is measured in a longitudinal direction of the plated steel sheet and a glossiness of the surface of the plated steel sheet that is measured in a sheet width direction of the plated steel sheet [Hahn, page 4, table B, and page 3, table A, L-longitudinal and T-transverse].
Regarding claim 12 (Original), Hahn discloses an apparatus for producing a textured plated steel sheet, comprising:
a plating apparatus for performing hot-dip plating or electroplating to form a plating layer on a surface of a steel sheet to produce a plated steel sheet [Hahn, page 2, pp 0023, hot-dip coating line which produces 25, where the hot-dip coating line is functionally equivalent to the claimed invention because the hot-dip coating line performs the claimed function in substantially the same way with substantially the same result];
a grinding apparatus that is arranged downstream of the plating apparatus, and that grinds a surface of the plating layer of the plated steel sheet to form a texture on the surface of the plating layer [Hahn, page 3, pp 0029, 20b, where the grinding apparatus is functionally equivalent to the claimed invention because the grinding apparatus performs the claimed function in substantially the same way with substantially the same result];
a plating thickness determination apparatus that determines plating thickness information relating to a differential thickness of the grinding of the plating layer that has been ground, and outputs the plating thickness information [Hahn, page 5, pp 0037 “inspection of the polished test sheet” and “accordingly, about 20% of the as-coated surface … was lost during polishing to a stainless steel appearance”, the inspection tool].
Hahn does not explicitly disclose a first plating thickness determination apparatus that determines first plating thickness information relating to a thickness before the grinding of the plating layer, and outputs the first plating thickness information; and a second plating thickness determination apparatus that is arranged downstream of the grinding apparatus, and that determines second plating thickness information relating to a thickness of the plating layer that has been ground, and outputs the second plating thickness information.
Pleuger teaches a grinding apparatus [Pleuger, page 1, pp 0010];
a first plating thickness determination apparatus that determines first plating thickness information relating to a thickness before the grinding of the plating layer, and outputs the first plating thickness information [Pleuger, page 2, pp’s 0018-0019, sensors that take measurement data before the grinding process, such as temperature sensors, where the temperature sensors are functionally equivalent to the claimed invention because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are insubstantial differences between the prior art and the claimed invention]; and
a second plating thickness determination apparatus that is arranged downstream of the grinding apparatus, and that determines second plating thickness information relating to a thickness of the plating layer that has been ground, and outputs the second plating thickness information [Pleuger, page 2, pp’s 0018-0019, sensors that take measurement data after the grinding process, such as temperature sensors, where the temperature sensors are functionally equivalent to the claimed invention because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are insubstantial differences between the prior art and the claimed invention].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included and used the temperature sensors of Pleuger as the thickness measuring apparatus to measure before and after the griding to obtain the differential measurement of Hahn because including measurement readings before and after about the workpiece is instrumental in making analyses and conclusions about the belt grinder [Pleuger, page 2, pp’s 0018-0019, summarized].
Regarding claim 16 (Currently Amended), Hahn as modified further discloses the apparatus for producing a textured plated steel sheet according to claim 12, further comprising: a coating film forming apparatus that is arranged downstream of the grinding apparatus, and that forms a coating film on the surface of the plating layer which has been subjected to the grinding [Hahn, page 7, pp 0043].
Regarding claim 17 (Currently Amended), Hahn as modified further discloses the apparatus for producing a textured plated steel sheet according to claim 12, further comprising: one or a plurality of gloss meters which are arranged downstream of the grinding apparatus, and which measure a glossiness of the surface of the plated steel sheet having the plating layer which has been subjected to the grinding [Hahn, page 3, table A and page 4, pp 0036 and table B teaches the evaluation of the sheet after to ensure that the appearance is that of stainless steel, teaching that there is a measurement of appearance].
Regarding claim 18 (Original), Hahn as modified further discloses the apparatus for producing a textured plated steel sheet according to claim 17, wherein, the gloss meters which are a gloss meter that measures a glossiness of the surface of the plated steel sheet in a longitudinal direction of the plated steel sheet and a gloss meter that measures a glossiness of the surface of the plated steel sheet in a sheet width direction of the plated steel sheet [Hahn, page 4, table B, and page 3, table A, L-longitudinal and T-transverse, teaching at least to measurements].
Hahn as modified does not explicitly discloses the gloss meters are two gloss meters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the gloss meters to have at least two gloss meters because per MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) the duplication of parts is held obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case, to have duplicated the gloss meters to have more than one to have more than one measurement is only a slight variation therefrom and would not produce an unexpected outcome and would have therefore constituted an obvious mechanical expedient before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The predictable result being that there are multiple meters to take multiple measurements, at least one meter for the before measurement and at least one other meter for taking the after measurement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 11, 13-15 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Pleuger et al (US PGPUB No. 2022/0305616) teaches in the adjusting process: grinding amount information that is information relating to the grinding amount in the grinding process is determined based on the first plating thickness information and the second plating thickness information [Pleuger, page 4, pp’s 0039 and 0040, teaching a neural network used to analyze state information and the output to control the grinder and page 5, pp 0045 teaching that the neural network uses a property of the workpiece].
The prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “the plating amount of the plating layer that is formed in the plating layer forming process and the grinding amount of the surface of the plating layer that is ground in the grinding process are adjusted based on the second plating thickness information and the grinding amount information” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim. Where the prior art Hahn and Pleuger only teach that a plating amount of a plating layer is made by the plating apparatus but does not teach the modification of the plating amount of the plating layer through the feedback of the sensors as required by the claim.
Claim 3 would be allowed as being dependent on claim 2.
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), Pleuger et al (US PGPUB No. 2022/0305616) teaches in the adjusting process, a grinding amount of the surface of the plating layer that is ground in the grinding process are adjusted based on the first plating thickness information, the second plating thickness information, and a glossiness of the surface of the plated steel sheet after the grinding process [Pleuger, page 4, pp’s 0039 and 0040, teaching a neural network used to analyze state information and the output to control the grinder and page 5, pp 0045 teaching that the neural network uses a property of the workpiece].
The prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “in the adjusting process, a plating amount of the plating layer that is formed in the plating layer forming process and a grinding amount of the surface of the plating layer that is ground in the grinding process are adjusted based on the first plating thickness information, the second plating thickness information, and a glossiness of the surface of the plated steel sheet after the grinding process (emphasis added)” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim. Where the prior art Hahn and Pleuger only teach that a plating amount of a plating layer is made by the plating apparatus but does not teach the modification of the plating amount of the plating layer through the feedback of the sensors as required by the claim.
Regarding claim 13 (Original), Pleuger et al (US PGPUB No. 2022/0305616) teaches the control unit: adjusts numerous variables of the surface of the workpiece based on the first plating thickness information and the second plating thickness information [Pleuger, page 4, pp’s 0039 and 0040, teaching a neural network used to analyze state information and the output to control the grinder and page 5, pp 0045 teaching that the neural network uses a property of the workpiece].
The prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “the control unit controls the plating apparatus to adjust the plating amount based on the first plating thickness information and the second plating thickness information, and controls the grinding apparatus so as to adjust the grinding amount of the surface of the plating layer that is ground by the grinding apparatus, based on the first plating thickness information and the second plating thickness information (emphasis added)” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim. Where the prior art Hahn and Pleuger only teach that a plating amount of a plating layer is made by the plating apparatus but does not teach the modification of the plating amount of the plating layer through the feedback of the sensors as required by the claim.
Claims 14-15 would be allowed as being dependent on claim 13.
Regarding claim 19 (Currently Amended), Pleuger et al (US PGPUB No. 2022/0305616) teaches the control unit controls the grinding apparatus so as to adjust the grinding amount of the surface of the plating layer that is ground by the grinding apparatus, based on the first plating thickness information, the second plating thickness information, and the glossiness of the surface of the plated steel sheet [Pleuger, page 4, pp’s 0039 and 0040, teaching a neural network used to analyze state information and the output to control the grinder and page 5, pp 0045 teaching that the neural network uses a property of the workpiece].
The prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “wherein the control unit: controls the plating apparatus so as to adjust the plating amount of the plating layer that is formed on the surface of the steel sheet by the plating apparatus, based on the first plating thickness information, the second plating thickness information, and the glossiness of the surface of the plated steel sheet” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim. Where the prior art Hahn and Pleuger only teach that a plating amount of a plating layer is made by the plating apparatus but does not teach the modification of the plating amount of the plating layer through the feedback of the sensors as required by the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights