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 without traverse of Claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 5/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 8, and 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR20140079011 (wherein all textual citations are to the English machine translation provided).
Examiner notes the dip tank and introducer sheath are not claimed leaving the claims to potentially read on almost any positionable gas blower at all, regardless of context. Examiner has attempted to address the claims closer to concept in the effort to promote compact prosecution, but highly encourages Applicant to claim the dip tank and introducer sheath and part of the device because the gas distributers positioning relative to these elements is essentially the whole invention and is not currently claimed.
Regarding Claims 1-3, 7 and 8, an apparatus for displacing a portion of a dross layer [8] enclosed within an introducer sheath [3] of a dip tank (See page 9, paragraphs [0021]-[0022], wherein a dip tank must be present to hold plating solution [7]) (See Figs. 1-2_, the apparatus comprising:
a gas source (See Fig. 3, wherein a gas source is clearly connected to [21a] to supply the gas); and
a gas distributor [21] in communication with the gas source via a gas line (and note anything between the source and the distributor is the gas line), the gas distributor including one or more gas outlets [22], the gas distributor [20] being configured to direct a flow of gas towards the dross layer [8] at an angle to move the portion of the dross layer [8] away from a predetermined point [1] (See Figs. 2-3, page 18-20, paragraph [0042]-[0045], wherein the nozzle body [21] of spraying means [20] is a gas distributor supplying non-oxidizing nitrogen gas, thus implying a nitrogen source and supply line to the nozzle body [21], via nozzle holes, which are a plurality of gas outlet oriented the common longitudinal axes along the length of an elongate tube [21], such that the nozzles are angled to move foreign dross materials [8] on the plating solution [7] away from the steel plate, i.e. a predetermined point in the bath).
Regarding Claim 4, KR20140079011 illustrated aligned outlets on an elongated tube all emitting in the same direct (See Fig. 3). Examiner submits this flow is a planar flow and the a similar device is described as creating such a planar flow in the instant specification and flat thin gas emission is considered a planar flow.
Regarding Claims 14-15, KR20140079011 illustrates three gas distributors, any two of which are a pair as claimed (See Figs. 2-3). Note a “substantially similar configuration” is incredibly and the nozzle bodies having a generally make-up and purpose certainly satisfies this.
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) 10, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20140079011.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, KR20140079011 teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as described above. KR20140079011 doesn’t specifically discuss turbulence. However, the gas distributor with tube has outlet is nearly identical to the structure described in the instant invention, which is described as configured to operate without turbulence (See instant USPgPub 2024/0247358, page 3, paragraph [0033] and Fig. 5) and wherein “configured to communicate a non-turbulent gas flow vector” is not provided as having any specific nozzle structure in the example (See id, page 6, paragraph [0064]). Further, inducing turbulence or nonturbulent flow is well-known to be based on the Reynolds number, which is entirely dependent on pressure and velocity of the fluid. Further, it is well-known and standard for gas source, i.e. the nitrogen source in KR20140079011 that must be present to supply the nitrogen to the outlet, to have valve controls to control gas outlet, thus enabling regulation and pressure on the fluid from the nozzle. At the very least, such valves are obvious as a standard gas tank feature to control gas pressure (See In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954) holding that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance).
As such, at the very least it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have a controllable gas flow of nitrogen in KR20140079011 that would enable gas and pressure control of the emitted nitrogen fluid. Such a system is configured to control pressure and velocity and thus control Reynold number and create turbulent and non-turbulent flows as desired. Applicant has provided no more specific structural context than this. Further, since the gas distributors [21] are rotatable and are ideal directed at or close to the pass line anyway (See Fig. 2, showing the gas distributors directed towards where the steel [1] enters the bath), and note no pass line exists in the claimed system anyway and it merely hypothetical (and thus theoretically could be place anywhere relative to the nozzles), claims 10 and 11 are obvious. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board's finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226,228-29 (CCPA 1971 ); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844,847, 120 USPQ 528,531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 13, KR20140079011 teaches gland packing [30] and ends [21a] securing the gas distributors [21] in the snout [3] (See Fig. 3 and page 17, paragraph [0038]). KR20140079011 doesn’t teach removability explicitly. However, according to In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523 (CCPA 1961), it is not inventive to make a cap separable “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of the holder to which the cap is applied…” Therefore, Examiner posits that, similarly, it is not inventive to make the gas distributor separable when removing it from the device would clearly allow a user to have easier access for maintenance and replacement.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20140079011 as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of WO2017057996 (wherein all textual citations are to the English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, KR20140079011 teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as described above. KR20140079011 doesn’t specifically teach a gas emitter as claimed. However, slit slots, i.e. narrow elongated slots, the fan outwardly in a triangular shape are known for outlet nozzles for blowing dross directionally relative to other outlets (See page 15, top paragraph, page 20, 2nd paragraph, and Fig. 10, teaching a transfer nozzle formed as slit slot [212] with an increasing cross-sectional area, i.e. fanning outwardly, and shown to be relatively triangular as showing in Fig. 10; and note Applicant’s “triangular” does not have a point and thus none is required to read on the term). It would have bene obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to implement a slot, such as slot [212], in KR20140079011, in order to corral the dross and desired into the concentrated area. Examiner submits the structure creating such a slot is a gas emitter and any supporting structure is a base (See, for example, KR20140079011, Fig. 3, wherein narrower tube portion support middle tube portion is a base).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20140079011 as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Yamauchi et al. (US 9,187,813).
Regarding Claim 9, KR20140079011 teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as described above. KR20140079011 doesn’t specifically teach a preheating as claimed. However, preheating inert gas in the snout is known in order to reduce metal coagulation on the snout wall (See, for example, Yamauchi et al., Abstract, col. 1, lines 14-40, and col. 2, lines 35-45). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize a gas preheater as claimed to heat the gas in KR20140079011. Doing so would have predictably reduced undesirable coagulation in the snout.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20140079011 as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of KR20030086785 (wherein all textual citations are to the English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 12, KR20140079011 teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as described above. KR20140079011 is silent on the characteristics of the gas supply, but it is apparent the gas distributor should have been situation near a bottom portion of snout so as to more directly affect the dross. KR20030086785 teaches the bottom portion of the snout may be movable and be secured with a flexible fluid conduit [30a] (See pages 18-19, paragraph [0030]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize a flexible fluid conduit to supply the nitrogen gas to the gas distributor [21] in KR20140079011. Doing so would have predictably been a suitable gas line to or from a snout enabling adjustment to any desired movement in the bottom snout portion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Reichel et al. (US 6,500,382) teaching blowing back a dross layer [6] on a metal bath [5] with a wide slot jet desired to minimize swirling, i.e. nonturbulent (See col. 2, lines 43-51 and col. 3, lines 19-30). Examiner notes until Applicant claims the introducer sheath and dip tank, references such as Reichel et al. are arguably a 102 for at least some of the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights