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
Claims 1-20 are pending and are presented for this examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 04/05/2024 and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
A detailed 101 analysis is present as following according to MPEP 2106.
First, according to MPEP 2106.03 Eligibility Step 1, independent claim 1 is directed to an apparatus. It should be noted how the claimed apparatus implementing a method is a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed. See MPEP 2114. The claimed method is implemented by a computer comprising software instructions according to instant application specification ([0072][0184]).
Recited steps in the method including detecting, determining, selecting (i.e., mental processes) and calculating/recalculating (i.e., mathematical concepts) which are merely an abstract idea done by computer. Hence, Steps A, B 1) and 2) are mental steps.
Second, according to MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A, Prong One, once the TPtarget is determined from step B, performing the determined TPtarget onto a steel sheet as recited in Step C. Here, the performing step C) is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract using a generic heat treatment step. Accordingly, this additional step C) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Third, according to MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A, Prong Two. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the determined thermal path to thermally treat a steel sheet amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic thermal treatment line. However, a generic thermal treatment line is routine, well known and conventional. Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea using a generic thermal treatment process cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.5(j)(h). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Fourth, according to MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2B whether a claim amounts to significantly more. In the instant case, there are no additional limitations or steps that are significantly more than the abstract idea.
As a result of rejected independent claim 1, all dependent claims are also rejected under the same statue.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cooling power" in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term "closest" in step B 2) of claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "closest" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is further unclear whether the closest refers to the relative difference or the absolute difference.
Claim 1 step B 1) recited “once CPx” is unclear as to whether it refers to one of the new cooling paths CPx or said CPx. Clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the initial microstructure mi;" in step B 1). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Instant claim 2 recites a wide variety of process parameters are variable to control. Among them “a failure in the heat treatment line”, “a variation of the hot dip bath” and variation of the steel thickness”. There are insufficient antecedent basis for the limits of “the hot dip bath” and “the steel thickness”. It is further unclear as to how a failure in the heat treatment line is measured. It is further unclear as to whether the steel thickness refers to the steel sheet thickness or something else.
Claim 3 recited “the phases” also lacks antecedent basis. Second, if the phase refers to ferrite, martensite, bainite, pearlite, cementite and austenite in instant claim 1; and basic metallurgical meaning of the term “phase” is defined by grain size, shape or grain size are well-known terms for defining a phase but not a chemical composition.
Claim 4 lists all possible combination of phases as microstructure without term “or”. How can a single steel sheet comprise so many different phases due to term “and” in line 13? Applicant is required to recite all possible combination of phases as microstructure mtarget in a format of Markush group. Second, recited term “from 5 and 25% of austenite” in line 7 is unclear since meets and bounds of austenite % is unclear.
As a result of rejected claim 1, all dependent claims are also rejected under the same statue.
Claim Interpretations
Instant claimed invention is directed to a heat treatment line which is an apparatus. How the claimed heat treatment line implementing a method is a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed. If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim including a computer capable of implementing the claimed method, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, instant claim 1 is nothing more than a heat treatment apparatus including a heating section, a soaking section and a cooling section including a cooling system and a computer to dynamically adjust the thermal heat treatment of a steel strip.
Instant claimed “for manufacturing a thermally treated steel sheet having a chemical steel composition and a microstructure mtarget comprising from 0 to 100% of at least one phase chosen among: ferrite, martensite, bainite, pearlite, cementite and austenite, wherein a predefined thermal treatment TT, comprising at least a heating, a soaking and a cooling steps, is performed” is an intended use and preamble of claimed invention. See MPEP 2111.02.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ikegami (US4,440,583).
As for claim 1, Ikegami discloses a heating furnace, a soaking furnace provided ahead of a cooling apparatus for a controllable cooling of a steel strip. Hence, Ikegami discloses a heat treatment line comprising, a heating section, a soaking section and then followed by a cooling section as required by instant claim.
Figures 1 and 6 further discloses a control computer 50 which calculates a heat transfer rate necessary for the achievement of a given cooling rate. Hence, Ikegami anticipated all the structural limitation including a heating section, a soaking section and a cooling section including a colling system and a computer capable of performing dynamic adjustment of cooling path.
With respect to claimed intended use and preamble, Ikegami’s heat treatment apparatus is fully capable of performing the intended use because Ikegami’s steel strip is cooled by the heat treatment apparatus.
Hence, Ikegami anticipates claim 1 according to claim interpretation above.
As for claims 2-5, instant claimed limitation are interpreted as material or article worked upon the claimed apparatus. According to MPEP 2115, material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims. In the instant case, steel sheet is merely a material contained in claimed heat treatment apparatus; but the composition, microstructure and characteristic of the steel sheet itself does not structurally limit claimed heat treatment apparatus.
As for claims 6-11, they are all interpreted as the heat treatment steps performed by the heat treatment apparatus. In view of Ikegami discloses instant claimed heat treatment apparatus with required heat treatment sections, it is fully capable of performing claimed heat treatment steps. See MPEP 2114.
As for claim 12, Ikegami discloses the cooling system has a coolant spray. (Abstract)
As for claim 13, Ikegami disclose the coolant is water. (Col 2 last line)
As for claim 14, Ikegami disclose the coolant is mixture of water and N2 gas. (Col 2 last line)
As for claim 15, Ikegami’s coolant water meets instant claimed mixture of gas and aqueous liquid.
As for claims 16 and 19-20, instant claimed wherein clause is a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed. Hence, it does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.
As for claims 17-18, instant claimed wherein clause is a conditional clause due to condition term “when”. It is not given patentable distinction when such conditional term is not met.
Claim(s) 1-11, 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Elfmark (US 5,891,275).
As for claim 1, Elfmark discloses a metal physical model used in a computer controlled cooling device for a rolling and cooling process for a hot strip or plate after the final rolling of the hot strip or plate. Hence, Elfmark suggests a heat treatment line comprising a heating section, a soaking section and a cooling section including a cooling system and a computer capable of performing dynamic adjustment of cooling a steel trip.
As for claims 2-11, 16 and 19-20, they are rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claims 2-11, 16 and 19-20 above over Ikegami.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNY R WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5515. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNY R WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights