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 1 - claims 17-25 in the reply filed on 23 March 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that EP2535431 of Guido does not teach the technical feature of an outlet opening which is in the form of a gap and extends longitudinally over the entire length of the chamber, as filed in instant claim 1. This is found persuasive; however, prior art reference JP2009202197 of Yamanoguchi in view of US4779357 of Troetscher and US7968046 of Ebner teaches the technical feature including the central chamber, inlet opening, slot shaped outlet opening, and first and second outer chamber segments.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 26-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected device for heat treating and nonelected method for heat treating, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 23 March 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 13 November 2026 and 12 May 2026 were considered by the examiner. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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.
Claim 22 is 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.
Claim 22 claims that the cross-sectional portion of the outer chamber segments tapers conically towards the slot-shaped outlet opening. It is unclear what is meant by conically. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect a conically shaped cross-section to contain curved edges, however, Fig. 3 of the instant specification shows a triangular shaped cross-section without rounded curvature that would be associated with a cone.
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.
Claims 17, 19, 20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2009202197 of Yamanoguchi (machine translation in file as of 05/12/2026) in view of US4779357 of Troetscher further in view of US7968046 of Ebner.
Claim 17 claims a heat treatment unit, comprising a longitudinally extending chamber, comprising: an inlet opening through which a gaseous cooling medium can be fed to the chamber; a slot-shaped outlet opening extending longitudinally along an entire length of the chamber through which the gaseous cooling medium can be discharged; a central chamber segment; and a first and a second outer chamber segment extending from the central chamber segment, the first and the second outer chamber segment, each having a cross-section tapering proportionally towards a distal end.
Yamanoguchi teaches a method of cooling rolled steel in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Yamanoguchi discloses a unit used to cool long rolled steel comprising a chamber with an inlet, Para[0010]. Yamanoguchi does not teach a slot shaped outlet or tapered first and second outer chamber segments.
Troetscher teaches an apparatus for blowing a treatment medium onto a longitudinally moving web in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Troetscher discloses blowing boxes with one longitudinal slit nozzle facing the web, Para[0004]. Troetscher teaches that an objective of the invention is to construct the nozzle box with a blowing medium supply in such a way that the treatment medium is directed substantially perpendicularly to the surface of the goods to be treated and so that a uniform speed of the treatment jet or jets is assured throughout the length of the nozzle box, Para[0017]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the longitudinal slit opening taught by Troetscher in the cooling unit disclosed by Yamanoguchi in order to achieve uniform speed of the treatment.
Ebner teaches an Apparatus for cooling a metal strip in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Ebner discloses a housing equivalent to the claimed central chamber, Para[0022], and Ebner also discloses tapered first and second outer chamber segments, Para[0023], Fig.4. Ebner teaches that the gas conduit of the nozzle strips thus extends to both sides of the associated blowing box, thus again leading to a tapering towards the ends of the gas conduit in order to achieve an even supply of the nozzle openings, Para[0023]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the tapered outer segment disclosed by Ebner in the cooling unit disclosed by Yamanoguchi in order to achieve an even supply of the openings.
Thus, Yamanoguchi in view of Troetscher and Ebner covers all limitations of claim 17.
Claim 19 further limits claim 17 by claiming that the central chamber segment has a constant cross-section along a longitudinal axis of the chamber.
Yamanoguchi teaches a constant cross section in the longitudinal direction of the chamber, Para[0014], Figs. 5, 6. Therefore, Yamanoguchi teaches the additional limitation of claim 19. Thus, Yamanoguchi in view of Troetscher and Ebner covers all limitations of claim 19.
Claim 20 further limits claim 17 by claiming that inlet opening is arranged in the central chamber segment (7).
Yamanoguchi teaches an inlet in the central chamber, Para[0010], Figs. 5,6. Therefore, Yamanoguchi teaches the additional limitation of claim 20. Thus, Yamanoguchi in view of Troetscher and Ebner covers all limitations of claim 20.
Claim 22 further limits claim 17 by claiming that the central chamber segment, the first, and the second outer chamber segment each have a cross-sectional portion tapering conically towards the slot-shaped outlet opening.
Yamanoguchi teaches a chamber with a taper towards the outlet opening, Para[0028], Figs. 1,5,6. Therefore, Yamanoguchi teaches the additional limitation of claim 22. Thus, Yamanoguchi in view of Troetscher and Ebner covers all limitations of claim 22.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2009202197 of Yamanoguchi (machine translation in file as of 05/12/2026) in view of US4779357 of Troetscher further in view of US7968046 of Ebner, as cited above, further in view of EP2535431 of Guido.
Claim 18 further limits claim 17 by claiming that the heat treatment unit is a cooling hood for cooling elongated steel products.
While Yamanoguchi, Troetscher, and Ebner do not specifically use the terminology “cooling hood”, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider their disclosed devices cooling hoods.
Furthermore, Guido teaches an improved hood assembly for controllably cooling extruded section members of aluminum and other metal materials at an output of an extruding line thereof in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to consider the “hood” terminlology used by Guido and apply it to the teachings of Yamanoguchi, Troetscher, and Ebner. Thus, Yamanoguchi in view of Troetscher, Ebner, and Guido covers all limitations of claim 18.
Claims 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2009202197 of Yamanoguchi (machine translation in file as of 05/12/2026) in view of US4779357 of Troetscher further in view of US7968046 of Ebner, as cited above, further in view of US4347960 of Gageur.
Claim 21 further limits claim17 by claiming that the first and the second outer chamber segment each have a distal end cross-section that is smaller than a cross-section of the central chamber segment by at least a factor of 4.
Yamanoguchi does not teach outer chamber segments with a smaller cross section than the central chamber.
Troetscher and Ebner both teach tapered outer chamber segments with smaller cross sections than the central chamber, Para[0050], Fig. 4 of Troetscher, Para[0023], Fig. 4 of Ebner. Troetscher and Ebner do not specifically teach the numerical limitation of claim 21.
Gageur teaches an apparatus for loading runs of fabric in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Gageur discloses that a lower barrier space (equivalent to the claimed outer chamber segment) is located above the discharge nozzle, above which in turn is located an upper barrier space (equivalent to the claimed central chamber cross section), Para[0011]. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to consider Fig. 2 of Gageur and reasonably assume that the lower barrier space cross section is smaller than the upper barrier space cross section by a factor much greater than 4, Fig.2. Gageur teaches that on account of this four-fold change in direction of flow, and the barrier space mounted in front of the discharge nozzle, it is now possible to blow or make the treatment medium flow in a fully uniform manner, free from any turbulence, at constant pressure, without shadow effects or formation, Para[0012]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the lower and upper barrier spaces as taught by Gageur in the cooling unit disclosed by Yamanoguchi, Troetscher, and Ebner resulting in a cross section of the outer section that is smaller than the cross section of the central chamber by more than a factor of 4 in order to make the medium flow in a fully uniform manner. Thus, Yamanoguchi in view of Troetscher, Ebner, and Gageur covers all limitations of claim 21.
Claim 25 further limits claim 17 by claiming that the cross-section of the slot-shaped outlet opening is designed to be adjustable.
Yamanoguchi does not teach a slot shaped outlet.
Gageur teaches a slotted discharge nozzle, Para[0001]. Gageur discloses that the discharge cross-section, i.e. the slot "s" of the discharge nozzle, can be adjusted by setting members, for instance an elongated slot with screw, located at the lower side of the barrier space 4, Para[0013]. Gageur teaches that it is now possible to blow or make the treatment medium flow in a fully uniform manner, free from any turbulence, at constant pressure, without shadow effects or formation, Para[0012]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the adjustable slot disclosed by Gageur in the cooling unit disclosed by Yamanoguchi in view of Troetscher and Ebner in order to make the treatment medium flow in a uniform manner. Thus, Yamanoguchi in view of Troetscher, Ebner, and Gageur covers all limitations of claim 25.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2009202197 of Yamanoguchi (machine translation in file as of 05/12/2026) in view of US4779357 of Troetscher further in view of US7968046 of Ebner, as cited above, further in view of the combination of KR20060128880 of Lecomte (machine translation) and EP1108793 of Stratton.
Claim 23 further limits claim 17 by claiming an inlet nozzle arranged in the inlet opening, comprising a cup-shaped body and two openings, a first of the two openings being aligned with the first outer chamber segment and a second of the two openings being aligned with the second outer chamber segment.
Yamanoguchi teaches an inlet cup-shaped body as the inlet opening, Para[0010], Figs. 5, 6. Yamanoguchi does not teach outer chamber segments or two openings in the inlet.
Troetscher and Ebner both teach tapered outer chamber segments with smaller cross sections than the central chamber in order to achieve uniform treatment, Para[0050], Fig. 4 of Troetscher, Para[0023], Fig. 4 of Ebner.
Lecomte teaches a method and device for cooling a steel strip in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Lecomte discloses that one important feature of the present invention is that the size of the cooling tubes is determined such that the jetting speed of the cooling fluid is uniform over the entire width of the strip. The deviation between the maximum injection speed Vmax and the minimum injection speed Vmin along the width of the lower tube is less than 5%. It is desirable to determine the size of the tubes so as to achieve the same velocity distribution. The ratio between the cross-sectional area for the tube passageway and the free cross-sectional area of the tube (i.e. the area of the slit or the total area of the holes) is greater than one, Para[0054-0058].
Stratton teaches quenching heated metallic objects in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Stratton discloses that the area of the holes should be less than the cross-section of the plenum and the gas pressure in the plenum chamber will exceed the pressure in the nozzles by a factor approximately equal to the ratio of the area of the holes to the area of the nozzle, Para[0023].
Therefore, based on the teachings of Lecomte and Stratton, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in order to ensure uniform jetting speed of the cooling medium, there must be an outlet or outlets with a cross-sectional area that is equal to or greater than the cross-sectional area of the inlet. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include openings that attach the inlet taught by Yamanoguchi to the outer segments taught by Troetscher and Ebner with cross sectional areas equal to or greater than the cross-sectional area of the inlet opening in order to ensure uniform jetting speed of the cooling medium. Therefore, Yamanoguchi in view of Troetscher, Ebner, Lecomte and Stratton covers all limitations of claim 23.
Claim 24 further limits claim 23 by claiming that each of the two openings has a cross-section corresponding to at least half an inlet cross-section of the cup-shaped body.
Yamanoguchi teaches an inlet cup-shaped body as the inlet opening, Para[0010], Figs. 5, 6. Yamanoguchi does not teach outer chamber segments or two openings in the inlet.
Troetscher and Ebner both teach tapered outer chamber segments with smaller cross sections than the central chamber in order to achieve uniform treatment, Para[0050], Fig. 4 of Troetscher, Para[0023], Fig. 4 of Ebner.
Lecomte teaches a method and device for cooling a steel strip in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Lecomte discloses that one important feature of the present invention is that the size of the cooling tubes is determined such that the jetting speed of the cooling fluid is uniform over the entire width of the strip. The deviation between the maximum injection speed Vmax and the minimum injection speed Vmin along the width of the lower tube is less than 5%. It is desirable to determine the size of the tubes so as to achieve the same velocity distribution. The ratio between the cross-sectional area for the tube passageway and the free cross-sectional area of the tube (i.e. the area of the slit or the total area of the holes) is greater than one, Para[0054-0058].
Stratton teaches quenching heated metallic objects in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Stratton discloses that the area of the holes should be less than the cross-section of the plenum and the gas pressure in the plenum chamber will exceed the pressure in the nozzles by a factor approximately equal to the ratio of the area of the holes to the area of the nozzle, Para[0023].
Therefore, based on the teachings of Lecomte and Stratton, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in order to ensure uniform jetting speed of the cooling medium, there must be an outlet or outlets with a cross-sectional area greater than or equal to the cross-sectional area of the inlet. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include openings that attach the inlet taught by Yamanoguchi to the outer segment taught by Troetscher and Ebner with cross sectional areas equal to or greater than the cross-sectional area of the inlet opening in order to ensure uniform jetting speed of the cooling medium. Therefore, Yamanoguchi in view of Troetscher, Ebner, Lecomte and Stratton covers all limitations of claim 24.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (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 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights