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
This is a response to the amendment filed 7/15/2026. Claims 16-20 have been canceled. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 23-27 are added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues KR20140079011 fails to teach the added limitations as claimed. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although KR20140079011 doesn’t specifically teach a function of explicitly that the flow of gas contacts the dross layer without first contacting a steel sheet [1] passing through the introducer sheath, the device is certainly capable of such function. 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).
KR20140079011 clearly teaches freely rotatable gas distributors that can be rotated to hit further up the steel sheet or further down and at the entry point between the sheet and dross so as to compensate for sheet sag in the steel sheet (See pages 13-15, paragraphs [0031]-[0035] and Fig. 2, wherein the sagging sheets [11a], [11b] clearly implies wide rotation latitude that could be directed at various points on the steel sheet as desired, including on the bath right at the sheet entry point). Thus, the gas distributors, by virtue of their rotational capability to adjust to sheet sag, are configured to adjust the point of contact on the steel sheet or down to the bath itself, thus having a structure configured as claimed, such a point still driving dross from the sheet. The flow at the entry point will flow dross to the edge of the introducer sheath in KR20140079011 (See Fig. 2). Further, the Examiner submits any flow that does not contact the sheet while carrying of the function would read on the claim, i.e. even if the device could only be directed such that 1% of the gas does not contact the sheet while 99% does, the device performs the claimed function, the claimed function of the configuration would be satisfied.
For the above, reasons, the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claims 1-15 and 25-27 are 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.
There is not support for the gas not contacting the steel sheet. The instant specification clearly states, “Each gas distributor (110) is tilted or oriented at an angle to direct gas towards a portion of steel sheet (60).” See instant PgPub 2024/0247358, page 2, paragraph [0022]. This is clearly shown in Figure 4, where the flow is on the steel sheet. The instant specification, on page 2, paragraph [0022] on the PgPub, does state the flow:
may be angled to clear at least a portion of dross layer (24) at the interface between molten metal (22) and steel sheet (60). In other words, each gas distributor (110) is configured to direct a flow of gas towards the entry point of steel sheet (60) into molten metal (22). As will be described in greater detail below, this flow of gas may be configured to push or displace at least a portion of dross layer (24) to the periphery of introducer sheath (30) and away from the entry point of steel sheet (60) into molten metal (22).
However, none of this describes a flow that DOES NOT CONTACT the steel sheet. In fact, the flow illustrated in Fig. 4 would perfectly fit this function, ensuring a gas flow is directed down the sheet on each side of the steel sheet to enter perfectly where the sheet enters the bath, thus pushing away dross from this entry point. This gas is angled to the entry point of the steel sheet via its passage along the steel sheet to this point. Thus, nothing in the instant specification suggests not contact the steel sheet at all. To the contrary, contacting the still sheet would appear exactly how the angling to direct a flow of gas towards the entry point of steel sheet is achieved. Any gas away from the steel sheet would risk pushing the dross towards the sheet and the instant specification doesn’t address this apparent contradiction, but does teach explicitly the gas is directed at the steel sheet.
For the above reasons, the amendments are not supported and are considered new matter.
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, 14-15, and 23-26 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).
Regarding Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 23-26, an apparatus for displacing a portion of a dross layer [8], the apparatus comprising:
an introducer sheath [3] configured to be at least partially within molten metal contained within a dip tank, the dross layer enclosed within the introducer sheath [3] (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] disposed within the introducer sheath and 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).
Although KR20140079011 doesn’t specifically teach the process of contacting the dross layer without first contacting a steel sheet [1] passing through the introducer sheath, the device is certainly capable of such function, and thus reasonably said to be configured to carry it out. 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).
KR20140079011 clearly teaches freely rotatable gas distributors that can be rotated to hit further up the steel sheet or further down and at the entry point between the sheet and dross so as to compensate for sheet sag in the steel sheet (See pages 13-15, paragraphs [0031]-[0035] and Fig. 2, wherein the sagging sheets [11a], [11b] clearly implies wide rotation latitude that could be directed at various points on the steel sheet as desired, including on the bath right at the sheet entry point). Thus, the gas distributors, by virtue of their rotational capability to adjust to sheet sag, are configured to adjust the point of contact on the steel sheet or down to the bath itself, thus having a structure configured as claimed, such a point still driving dross from the sheet. Note Claim 23 does not exclude an angle hitting the steel sheet first, but even if it did, KR20140079011 has a configuration making it capable of this as described. The flow at the entry point will flow dross to the edge of the introducer sheath in KR20140079011 (See Fig. 2) and Examiner submits any flow that does not contact the sheet while carrying of the function would read on the claim, i.e. even if 1% of the gas does not contact the sheet while the device performs the claimed function, the claimed function of the configuration would be satisfied.
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(s) 1-2, 4, 7, 8, and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JPH04276052 (wherein all textual citations are to the English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claims 1-2, 7, 8, and 23-26, JPH04276052 an apparatus for displacing a portion of a dross layer [5], the apparatus comprising: an introducer sheath [4] configured to be at least partially within molten metal contained within a dip tank, the dross layer enclosed within an introducer sheath [4] (See Fig. 1-2 and paragraphs [0008], wherein the dip tank is shown to hold plating [5], with dross on top);
a gas source (See paragraph [0009] and Fig. 2, wherein a gas source is clearly connected to [21a] to supply the gas [7]); and
a gas distributor [8] disposed within the introducer sheath [4] 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 (See Fig. 3, and note the outlet is along a tube), the gas distributor [8] being configured to direct a flow of gas directly towards the dross layer [5] at an angle to move the portion of the dross layer [5] away from a predetermined point [1], the flow of gas being configured to contact the dross layer without first contacting a steel sheet [1] passing through the introducer sheath (See Figs. 2-4, and paragraph [0011], wherein the flow of gas [7] comes from the side at an angle of 1-10 degrees and mostly does not contact the steel sheet while pushing dross to an edge of the snot [4]; note any flow directed to push dross as claimed that does not touch the sheet is configured as claimed).
Regarding Claim 4, the flow in JPH04276052 is clearly flat and thus a planer flow (See Figs. 2-4).
Regarding Claim 7-8, JPH04276052 teaches nitrogen gas (See paragraph [0011]).
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 and 27 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 Claims 9 and 27, 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
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 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