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
Claims 1-20 are examined in this office action.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-4 and 6-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “localized heating” and the term “localized heating” is repeated in claim 3. Also, claims 6, 11, and 18 all recite the term “localized current intensities”. The term “localized” in claims 2-3, 6, 11, and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “localized” 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 not clear from the specification what differentiates “localized” heating and current intensities from heating and current intensities in general. Claims 4, 12-17, and 19-20 are also rejected as they depend from claims 2, 11, and 18 above and do not solve the above issue.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “performing the localized heating employing one a uniform heating rate and a tailored or a variable heating rate to achieve a desired temperature profile”. It is not clear how the localized heating is performed. It is not clear what “one a uniform heating rate” is nor how this can be performed at the same time as “a tailored or a variable heating rate”. A uniform heating rate and a variable heating rate are opposites and cannot be performed at the same time.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “providing zoned hold temperatures for the blank” in the last line of the claim. It is not clear what a “zoned” hold temperature is and how it is provided. Claim 8 is also rejected as it depends from claim 7 and does not solve the above issue.
Claims 9 and 10 both recite the limitation “about” in conjunction with “greater than or equal to” and “less than or equal to”. Thus applicant is using a term of approximation which would require some amount beyond the claimed range to have any meaning with language that creates a hard cutoff on the range. Thus, it is not clear what the scope of these ranges is.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “enriching with Cr and Si” in the last line of the claim. It is not clear what is enriched with Cr and Si. It is not clear if this refers to the CFPHS material as a whole, the alloy matrix, the surface oxide layer, or some other meaning.
The term “sub-critical temperatures” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sub-critical” 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. While it is known that steels are heated to temperatures to modify their properties, it is not clear what makes a temperature "critical" and thus it is also not clear what a "sub-critical" temperature encompasses.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “mitigating an edge effect of overheating risk of the modified blank by tuning a current input and a frequency input to the induction heating coils or controlling a distance from one coil of the multiple induction heating coils for heating”. It is not clear what an edge effect is, nor how it is mitigated by tuning the current and frequency of the induction heating coils or by controlling the distance of the coils to the blank.
The term “maximum allowable oxide layer” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “maximum allowable” 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. While an oxide layer must either not be present or have some thickness, it is not clear what a "maximum allowable" thickness is nor how this is determined.
Claim 20 uses the term “approximately” in conjunction with a range of temperatures and a range of heating rate. With the use of “approximately”, it is not clear what is encompassed within these ranges. It is not clear whether these ranges include temperatures below 500 °C and above 950 °C nor whether the heating rates ben be below 20 °C/sec or above 500 °C/sec or not.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. forming a shaped part by operation of the die creating a finished CFPHS part is not patentably distinct from the last step of claim 13 which requires forming a shaped part including operating the die to create a finished CFPHS part. Both are open method steps that use a die to create the CFPHS part and therefore claim 14 does not further limit claim 13. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2017/0051371 A1 of Chauvin.
As to claim 1, the claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use "can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim" as drafted without importing "'extraneous' limitations from the specification." Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999), see MPEP § 2111.02(II). In the instant case, the limitation “to achieve variable properties of a vehicle component” is merely a statement of intended use of what is accomplished by the method and does not add any structure to the method that is not recited in the claim.
Chauvin discloses a method for treating a press hardened part where the part is steel (Chauvin, abstract and paragraph [0021]), meeting the claim limitations of using a coating free press hardened steel as Chauvin is silent on coating, the part is coating free. Chauvin discloses setting a time value and temperature value for a plurality of induction heaters and induction heating a local area of the part and Chauvin discloses where this produces a press hardened part with induction heated localized areas having lower hardness (Chauvin, claim 1 and paragraph [0007]), meeting the limitation of transferring a blank of a CFPHS material having base blank properties into a heating unit having multiple induction heating coils; heating the blank within the heating unit to create a modified blank having differing modified blank properties throughout the modified blank compared to the base blank properties. Chauvin discloses where the system for locally softening part is provided in-line with a hot stamping tool, the output of the plurality of induction heating system should be matched to the cycle time of the hot stamping tool (Chauvin, paragraph [0031]), meeting the claim limitations of moving the modified blank out of the heating unit into a die; and forming a shaped part by operation of the die creating a finished CFPHS part as by being in line with a hot stamping tool, there is a die that the part is moved into and a finished shaped part is formed.
As to claim 2, it is not clear what is meant by “localized heating”, see 112(b) rejection above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as requiring heating to a portion of the part. Chauvin discloses setting a time value and temperature value for a plurality of induction heaters and induction heating a local area of the part and Chauvin discloses where this produces a press hardened part with induction heated localized areas having lower hardness (Chauvin, claim 1 and paragraph [0007]), where hardness is a mechanical quality of the part and heating local areas meets heating a portion of the part.
As to claim 3, it is not clear what is meant by “one a uniform heating rate”, see 112(b) rejection above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as requiring one of a uniform heating rate, a tailored heating rate, or a variable heating rate. Chauvin discloses a desired temperature and a desired time for induction heating the parts, (Chauvin, paragraph [0015]), thus Chauvin is disclosing a heating rate and therefore this is a tailored heating rate.
As to claim 4, Chauvin discloses setting a time value and temperature value for a plurality of induction heaters and induction heating a local area of the part and Chauvin discloses where this produces a press hardened part with induction heated localized areas having lower hardness (Chauvin, claim 1 and paragraph [0007]), meeting the claim limitation of heating in predetermined areas within the blank to enable a selective mechanical and surface property profile defining the modified blank.
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 5-6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0051371 A1 of Chauvin in view of US 6229126 B1 of Ulrich.
As to claim 5, Chauvin discloses setting a time value and temperature value for a plurality of induction heaters and induction heating a local area of the part (Chauvin, claim 1). However, Chauvin does not explicitly disclose using a variable power supply having a variable frequency device.
Ulrich relates to the same field of endeavor of an induction heating system (Ulrich, abstract). Ulrich teaches using a variable frequency power supply in the induction heating system (Ulrich, col 4, lines 6-7). Ulrich teaches that the varying or alternating current in the loop creates a varying magnetic flux within the metal to be heated where a current is induced in the metal by the magnetic flux, thus heating it (Ulrich, col 1, lines 14-17). Ulrich teaches that the variable frequency power supply provides proper coupling and ensuring efficient power transfer (Ulrich, col 5, lines 15-17 and 29-32).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a variable frequency power supply as taught by Ulrich into the method of inductively heating a press hardened steel in Chauvin, thereby providing proper coupling and ensuring efficient power transfer (Ulrich, col 5, lines 15-17 and 29-32).
As to claim 6, Ulrich teaches that the varying or alternating current in the loop creates a varying magnetic flux within the metal to be heated where a current is induced in the metal by the magnetic flux, thus heating it (Ulrich, col 1, lines 14-17), meeting the claim limitation of generating varying and localized current intensities within the heating unit and in the blank.
As to claim 18, the claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use "can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim" as drafted without importing "'extraneous' limitations from the specification." Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999), see MPEP § 2111.02(II). In the instant case, the limitation “to achieve variable properties of a component” is merely a statement of intended use of what is accomplished by the method and does not add any structure to the method that is not recited in the claim.
Chauvin discloses a method for treating a press hardened part where the part is steel (Chauvin, abstract and paragraph [0021]), meeting the claim limitations of using a coating free press hardened steel as Chauvin is silent on coating, the part is coating free. Chauvin discloses setting a time value and temperature value for a plurality of induction heaters and induction heating a local area of the part and Chauvin discloses where this produces a press hardened part with induction heated localized areas having lower hardness (Chauvin, claim 1 and paragraph [0007]), meeting the limitation of transferring a blank of a CFPHS material having base blank properties into a heating unit having multiple induction heating coils; heating the blank within the heating unit to create a modified blank having differing modified blank properties throughout the modified blank compared to the base blank properties.
While Chauvin discloses this being an automotive part (Chauvin, paragraph [0003]), Chauvin does not explicitly disclose where the blank has a shape of flat, rod, wire, coil, and bar. However, these shapes of flat, rod, wire, coil, and bar are well known automotive part shapes and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select such as a flat blank to thereby form a panel out of such as a door or hood. Further, the MPEP provides that changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed configuration was significant, see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B) citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
However, Chauvin does not explicitly disclose using a variable power supply having a variable frequency device nor generating varying and localized current intensities within the heating unit and in the blank.
Ulrich relates to the same field of endeavor of an induction heating system (Ulrich, abstract). Ulrich teaches using a variable frequency power supply in the induction heating system (Ulrich, col 4, lines 6-7). Ulrich teaches that the varying or alternating current in the loop creates a varying magnetic flux within the metal to be heated where a current is induced in the metal by the magnetic flux, thus heating it (Ulrich, col 1, lines 14-17) ), meeting the claim limitation of generating varying and localized current intensities within the heating unit and in the blank. These together also meet the claim 12 limitation of operating the variable power supply with variable frequency device. Ulrich teaches that the variable frequency power supply provides proper coupling and ensuring efficient power transfer (Ulrich, col 5, lines 15-17 and 29-32).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a variable frequency power supply and varying the current in the heating device and the metal as taught by Ulrich into the method of inductively heating a press hardened steel in Chauvin, thereby providing proper coupling and ensuring efficient power transfer (Ulrich, col 5, lines 15-17 and 29-32).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0051371 A1 of Chauvin and US 6229126 B1 of Ulrich as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US 2021/0180169 A1 of Arnett.
As to claim 7, it is not clear what is meant by “zoned hold temperatures”, see 112(b) rejection above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as requiring a set heating temperature for the blank. Chauvin discloses setting a time value and temperature value for a plurality of induction heaters and induction heating a local area of the part and (Chauvin, claim 1), meeting the limitation of setting a heating temperature. However, Chauvin does not disclose where variable heating rates are generated.
Arnett relates to the same field of endeavor of applying thermal treatments using an inductive heating coil (Arnett, paragraph [0038]). Arnett teaches controlling and applying adjustments to the inductive heating coils to modify the heating rate during operation (Arnett, paragraph [0041]). Arnett teaches that applying different rates of heating create varying material properties in the part (Arnett, paragraph [0058]).
As Chauvin is concerned with creating different regions with different properties in a part using inductive heating, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add modifying the heating rate during operation as taught by Arnett into the method of inductive heating of a press hardened steel disclosed in Chauvin, thereby creating varying material properties in the part (Arnett, paragraph [0058]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0051371 A1 of Chauvin, US 6229126 B1 of Ulrich, and US 2021/0180169 A1 of Arnett as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US 2011/0283851 A1 of Overrath.
As to claim 8, Chauvin discloses where after induction heating, the part is removed from the induction heating system and is processed as an outgoing part (Chauvin, paragraph [0028]). However, Chauvin does not explicitly disclose where a multi-axis transfer device is used to manipulate the blank within the heating unit.
Overrath relates to the same field of endeavor of hot forming press-hardened components (Overrath, abstract). Overrath teaches use of a robot for transferring the blank or the component from a heating device to a furnace or from a furnace to a press system and Overrath discloses where this is a multi-axis robot arm (Overrath, paragraph [0020]; see 6 and 9 in Fig. 1)., meeting the claim limitation of a multi-axis transfer device. Overrath teaches that this allows for there to be an automatically controlled transfer device (Overrath, paragraph [0020]).
As there must be some means for moving parts between heating devices and forming dies in Chauvin, but Chauvin is silent concerning the specific means of moving the part between these operations, one of ordinary skill would naturally look to the art to select an appropriate means to carry out the method. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a multi-axis robot arm as taught by Overrath into the method of treating a press hardened steel disclosed in Chauvin, thereby having an automatically controlled transfer device (Overrath, paragraph [0020]) that eliminates the need for an operator for that portion of the process.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0051371 A1 of Chauvin in view of US 2021/0002746 A1 of Lu.
As to claims 9-10, it is not clear what is meant concerning the use of about and approximately, see 112(b) rejection above. Also, it is not clear what is meant by “enriching with Cr and Si” . For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as requiring the claimed ranges for the elements and properties as well as where the oxide layer is enriched with Cr and Si. While Chauvin discloses a method for treating a press hardened part where the part is steel (Chauvin, abstract and paragraph [0021]), Chauvin does not disclose a composition for the press hardened steel, nor the microstructure or oxide layer.
Lu relates to the same field of endeavor of a press-hardened steel (Lu, abstract). Lu discloses where the press hardened steel comprises carbon (C) at a concentration of greater than or equal to about 0.01 wt. % to less than or equal to about 0.35 wt. % (overlapping the claimed range of greater than or equal to about 0.05 wt. % to less than or equal to about 0.35 wt.%), chromium (Cr) at a concentration of greater than or equal to about 1 wt. % to less than or equal to about 9 wt. % (matching the claimed range of greater than or equal to about 1 wt. % to less than or equal to about 9 wt. %), silicon (Si) at a concentration of greater than or equal to about 0.5 wt. % to less than or equal to about 2 wt. % (matching the claimed range of greater than or equal to about 0.5 wt. % to less than or equal to about 2 wt. %), manganese (Mn) at a concentration of greater than or equal to about 0.01 wt. % to less than or equal to about 3 wt. % (overlapping the claimed range of greater than or equal to about 0.5 wt. % to less than or equal to about 2.5 wt. %) and a balance of iron (Fe) (matching the claimed balance) (Lu, claims 1-2). Lu teaches where the steel has an alloy matrix being greater than or equal to about 95 vol. % martensite (Lu, claim 1), matching the claimed range. Lu discloses where the steel has a first layer disposed directly on the alloy matrix, the first layer being continuous, having a thickness of greater than or equal to about 0.01 μm to less than or equal to about 10 μm, and comprising an oxide enriched with Cr and Si (Lu, claim 1), meeting the claim limitation concerning a surface oxide layer enriched with Cr and Si. Lu teaches that this press hardened steel has a uniform, homogenous surface that resists oxidation, does not include an exogenous coating, i.e., a coating that is not derived from the steel alloy or matrix, and does not require descaling (Lu, paragraph [0084]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the press hardened steel composition with an alloy matrix being greater than or equal to about 95 vol. % martensite and the oxide layer enriched with Si and Cr disclosed by Lu into the method of treating a press hardened steel disclosed in Chauvin, thereby having a this press hardened steel that has a uniform, homogenous surface that resists oxidation (Lu, paragraph [0084]).
Claims 11-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0051371 A1 of Chauvin in view of US 6229126 B1 of Ulrich and US 2011/0283851 A1 of Overrath.
As to claims 11-12, the claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use "can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim" as drafted without importing "'extraneous' limitations from the specification." Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999), see MPEP § 2111.02(II). In the instant case, the limitation “to achieve variable properties of a component” is merely a statement of intended use of what is accomplished by the method and does not add any structure to the method that is not recited in the claim.
Chauvin discloses a method for treating a press hardened part where the part is steel (Chauvin, abstract and paragraph [0021]), meeting the claim limitations of using a coating free press hardened steel as Chauvin is silent on coating, the part is coating free. Chauvin discloses setting a time value and temperature value for a plurality of induction heaters and induction heating a local area of the part and Chauvin discloses where this produces a press hardened part with induction heated localized areas having lower hardness (Chauvin, claim 1 and paragraph [0007]), meeting the limitation of transferring a blank of a CFPHS material having base blank properties into a heating unit having multiple induction heating coils; heating the blank within the heating unit to create a modified blank having differing modified blank properties throughout the modified blank compared to the base blank properties.
However, Chauvin does not explicitly disclose using a variable power supply having a variable frequency device nor generating varying and localized current intensities within the heating unit and in the blank.
Ulrich relates to the same field of endeavor of an induction heating system (Ulrich, abstract). Ulrich teaches using a variable frequency power supply in the induction heating system (Ulrich, col 4, lines 6-7). Ulrich teaches that the varying or alternating current in the loop creates a varying magnetic flux within the metal to be heated where a current is induced in the metal by the magnetic flux, thus heating it (Ulrich, col 1, lines 14-17) ), meeting the claim limitation of generating varying and localized current intensities within the heating unit and in the blank. These together also meet the claim 12 limitation of operating the variable power supply with variable frequency device. Ulrich teaches that the variable frequency power supply provides proper coupling and ensuring efficient power transfer (Ulrich, col 5, lines 15-17 and 29-32).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a variable frequency power supply and varying the current in the heating device and the metal as taught by Ulrich into the method of inductively heating a press hardened steel in Chauvin, thereby providing proper coupling and ensuring efficient power transfer (Ulrich, col 5, lines 15-17 and 29-32).
Chauvin discloses where after induction heating, the part is removed from the induction heating system and is processed as an outgoing part (Chauvin, paragraph [0028]). However, Chauvin does not explicitly disclose where a multi-axis transfer device is used to manipulate the blank within the heating unit.
Overrath relates to the same field of endeavor of hot forming press-hardened components (Overrath, abstract). Overrath teaches use of a robot for transferring the blank or the component from a heating device to a furnace or from a furnace to a press system and Overrath discloses where this is a multi-axis robot arm (Overrath, paragraph [0020]; see 6 and 9 in Fig. 1)., meeting the claim limitation of a multi-axis transfer device. Overrath teaches that this allows for there to be an automatically controlled transfer device (Overrath, paragraph [0020]).
As there must be some means for moving parts between heating devices and forming dies in Chauvin, but Chauvin is silent concerning the specific means of moving the part between these operations, one of ordinary skill would naturally look to the art to select an appropriate means to carry out the method. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a multi-axis robot arm as taught by Overrath into the method of treating a press hardened steel disclosed in Chauvin, thereby having an automatically controlled transfer device (Overrath, paragraph [0020]) that eliminates the need for an operator for that portion of the process.
As to claims 13-14, Overrath teaches use of a robot for transferring the blank or the component from a heating device to a furnace or from a furnace to a press system and Overrath discloses where this is a multi-axis robot arm (Overrath, paragraph [0020]; see 6 and 9 in Fig. 1)., meeting the claim limitation of a multi-axis transfer device. Chauvin discloses where the system for locally softening part is provided in-line with a hot stamping tool, the output of the plurality of induction heating system should be matched to the cycle time of the hot stamping tool (Chauvin, paragraph [0031]), meeting the claim 13 and 14 limitations of moving the modified blank out of the heating unit into a die; and forming a shaped part by operation of the die creating a finished CFPHS part as by being in line with a hot stamping tool, there is a die that the part is moved into and a finished shaped part is formed.
As to claim 16, it is not clear what is meant by “mitigating an edge effect”, see 112(b) rejection above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as requiring changes to the current and frequency input to the heating coils. Ulrich teaches using a variable frequency power supply in the induction heating system (Ulrich, col 4, lines 6-7). Ulrich teaches that the varying or alternating current in the loop creates a varying magnetic flux within the metal to be heated where a current is induced in the metal by the magnetic flux, thus heating it (Ulrich, col 1, lines 14-17). Ulrich teaches that the variable frequency power supply provides proper coupling and ensuring efficient power transfer (Ulrich, col 5, lines 15-17 and 29-32). Thus, Ulrich is disclosing where variances in the frequency and currents are occurring in the coils.
As to claim 17, it is not clear what is meant by maximum allowable oxide layer, see 112(b) rejection above. For the purposes of applying prior art, as there is no disclosure of a maximum oxide layer thickness, this will be interpreted as allowing for no oxide layer. As Chauvin discloses a method for treating a press hardened part where the part is steel (Chauvin, abstract and paragraph [0021]), this meets the claim limitation as Chauvin does not disclose where there is an oxide layer on the steel.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0051371 A1 of Chauvin, US 6229126 B1 of Ulrich and US 2011/0283851 A1 of Overrath as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of DE 10 2009 042 387 A1 and its English translation of Hartmann.
As to claim 15, it is not clear what is meant by “sub-critical temperatures”, see 112(b) rejection above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as requiring a temperature less than austinization temperature. Chauvin discloses setting a time value and temperature value for a plurality of induction heaters and induction heating a local area of the part and Chauvin discloses where this produces a press hardened part with induction heated localized areas having lower hardness (Chauvin, claim 1 and paragraph [0007]), meeting the limitation of tailoring mechanical properties of the modified blank via operation of the induction heating coils. However, Chauvin does not disclose heating areas to achieve an austenitization temperature nor heating other areas to a temperature less than austenization to achieve tailored mechanical properties.
Hartmann relates to the same field of endeavor of producing a sheet steel component having areas of different hardness or ductility (Hartmann, abstract). Hartmann teaches fully austenitizing the component in certain areas and partially or not at all austenitizing it in other areas, and then rapidly cooling the component using water cooling after sufficient heating (Hartmann, paragraph [0030]). Hartmann teaches that this hardens the areas of austenizing while the other areas which are only partially heated remain ductile (Hartmann, paragraph [0030]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute heating areas above as well as below the austinization temperature as taught by Hartmann into the method of treating a press hardened part disclosed in Chauvin, thereby creating hardened areas as well as ductile areas of the part (Hartmann, paragraph [0030]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0051371 A1 of Chauvin and US 6229126 B1 of Ulrich as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of US 2011/0283851 A1 of Overrath.
As to claim 19, Chauvin discloses where the system for locally softening part is provided in-line with a hot stamping tool, the output of the plurality of induction heating system should be matched to the cycle time of the hot stamping tool (Chauvin, paragraph [0031]), meeting the claim limitations of moving the modified blank out of the heating unit into a die; and forming a shaped part by operation of the die creating a finished CFPHS part as by being in line with a hot stamping tool, there is a die that the part is moved into and a finished shaped part is formed.
However, Chauvin does not explicitly disclose where a multi-axis transfer device is used to manipulate the blank within the heating unit.
Overrath relates to the same field of endeavor of hot forming press-hardened components (Overrath, abstract). Overrath teaches use of a robot for transferring the blank or the component from a heating device to a furnace or from a furnace to a press system and Overrath discloses where this is a multi-axis robot arm (Overrath, paragraph [0020]; see 6 and 9 in Fig. 1)., meeting the claim limitation of a multi-axis transfer device. Overrath teaches that this allows for there to be an automatically controlled transfer device (Overrath, paragraph [0020]).
As there must be some means for moving parts between heating devices and forming dies in Chauvin, but Chauvin is silent concerning the specific means of moving the part between these operations, one of ordinary skill would naturally look to the art to select an appropriate means to carry out the method. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a multi-axis robot arm as taught by Overrath into the method of treating a press hardened steel disclosed in Chauvin, thereby having an automatically controlled transfer device (Overrath, paragraph [0020]) that eliminates the need for an operator for that portion of the process.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0051371 A1 of Chauvin and US 6229126 B1 of Ulrich as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US 2017/0029915 A1 of Hayashi.
As to claim 20, Chauvin discloses heating the localized area of the incoming part to a temperature of between 700° and 870° C (Chauvin, paragraph [0028), falling within the claimed range of 500° C to 950° C. However, Chauvin is silent concerning the heating rate.
Hayashi relates to the same field of endeavor of hot pressed steel sheets (Hayashi, abstract). Hayashi teaches using induction heating (Hayashi, paragraph [0173]) and Hayashi teaches using a heating rate of 0.2° C/second to 100° C/second (Hayashi, paragraph [0172]). Hayashi teaches that higher heating rates results in higher productivity (Hayashi, paragraph [0172]).
As Chauvin is silent concerning a heating rate, but requires heating, one of ordinary skill would naturally look to the art to determine an appropriate heating rate. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a heating rate of 100° C/second as taught by Hayashi into the method of heat treating a coating free press hardened steel disclosed by Chauvin, thereby increasing productivity of the operation (Hayashi, paragraph [0172]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is (571)272-2724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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 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.
/JOSHUA S CARPENTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733