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 .
Applicant amended Claims 1 and 3-5. Applicant canceled Claim 2. Support for the amendments are found in the original filing. No new matter is presented.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/08/2023, 05/01/2025, 08/25/2025, 12/25/2025, 02/02/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Responsive to communications filed on 07/17/2026, amendments to the claims have been acknowledged.
The amendments have overcome prior art rejections made 04/07/2026 but new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been made necessitated by amendment.
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 and 3-8 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 1 recites “an amount of temperature control required” in Line 15 and “an amount of temperature control” in Line 17. “[T]emperature control” is not a set value and it is unclear how a temperature can constitute an “amount.” It is unclear whether a temperature range is intended, a specific temperature value, or some other meaning entirely. Further, “temperature control” is an action, not an amount. It is unclear the meaning of “an amount of temperature control” and how to determine the amount required.
Separate from the issue above, Claim 1 recites “required for each steel sheet” in Line 15. It is unclear what actionable and repeatable method step is established by “required.” There are no parameters establishing what is achieved by any ‘requirement’ and “required for each steel” therefore takes on a subjective meaning, rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “maximum heating capacity of the first induction heating device” in Lines 16-18. A clearer nexus must be established between the “maximum heating capacity of the first induction heating device” and the “amount of temperature control” in Lines 15 and 17. It is unclear exactly what variable, temperature range, or change in temperature impacts the “maximum heating capacity of the first induction heating device.” Appropriate correction is required to convey actionable and repeatable method steps with positive active claim language.
Claim 4 recites “an amount of temperature control required” in Lines 18-19 and “an amount of temperature control” in Line 21. “[T]emperature control” is not a set value and it is unclear how a temperature can constitute an “amount.” It is unclear whether a temperature range is intended, a specific temperature value, or some other meaning entirely. Further, “temperature control” is an action, not an amount. It is unclear the meaning of “an amount of temperature control” and how to determine the amount required.
Separate from the issue above, Claim 4 recites “required for each steel sheet” in Line 19. It is unclear what actionable and repeatable method step is established by “required.” There are no parameters establishing what is achieved by any ‘requirement’ and “required for each steel” therefore takes on a subjective meaning, rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “maximum heating capacity of the first induction heating device” in Lines 19 and 21-22. A clearer nexus must be established between the “maximum heating capacity of the first induction heating device” and the “amount of temperature control” in Lines 18-19. It is unclear exactly what variable, temperature range, or change in temperature impacts the “maximum heating capacity of the first induction heating device.” Appropriate correction is required to convey actionable and repeatable method steps with positive active claim language.
Claim 5 recites “an amount of temperature control required” in Line 4 and “an amount of temperature control” in Line 6. “[T]emperature control” is not a set value and it is unclear how a temperature can constitute an “amount.” It is unclear whether a temperature range is intended, a specific temperature value, or some other meaning entirely. Further, “temperature control” is an action, not an amount. It is unclear the meaning of “an amount of temperature control” and how to determine the amount required.
Separate from the issue above, Claim 5 recites “required for each steel sheet” in Line 4. It is unclear what actionable and repeatable method step is established by “required.” There are no parameters establishing what is achieved by any ‘requirement’ and “required for each steel” therefore takes on a subjective meaning, rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites “maximum heating capacity of the first induction heating device” in Line 5. A clearer nexus must be established between the “maximum heating capacity of the first induction heating device” and the “amount of temperature control” in Line 4. It is unclear exactly what variable, temperature range, or change in temperature impacts the “maximum heating capacity of the first induction heating device.” Appropriate correction is required to convey actionable and repeatable method steps with positive active claim language.
Claim 6 recites “an amount of temperature control required” in Lines 29-30 and “an amount of temperature control” in Line 32. “[T]emperature control” is not a set value and it is unclear how a temperature can constitute an “amount.” It is unclear whether a temperature range is intended, a specific temperature value, or some other meaning entirely. Further, “temperature control” is an action, not an amount. It is unclear the meaning of “an amount of temperature control” and how to determine the amount required.
Separate from the issue above, Claim 6 recites “required for each steel sheet” in Line 30. It is unclear what actionable and repeatable method step is established by “required.” There are no parameters establishing what is achieved by any ‘requirement’ and “required for each steel” therefore takes on a subjective meaning, rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites “maximum heating capacity of the first induction heating device” in Line 30 and 32-33. A clearer nexus must be established between the “maximum heating capacity of the first induction heating device” and the “amount of temperature control” in Lines 29-30 and 32. It is unclear exactly what variable, temperature range, or change in temperature impacts the “maximum heating capacity of the first induction heating device.” Appropriate correction is required to convey actionable and repeatable method steps with positive active claim language.
Claims 3 and 7-8 are rejected for their dependency on a rejected claim.
Free of Prior Art
The closest prior art to the amended claims is Fukuzumi JP 2008175761 A which teaches continuous annealing equipment for steel sheets comprising first and second soaking zones and Onoda et al. WO 9700975 which teaches an induction heating device which may be provided at any portion of the soaking zone in a continuous annealing line. After the interview held 07/06/2026, applicant has specified criticality of dual induction heating devices, their placement, integration with the measuring device, and structure within the claimed apparatus and method. The previous rejections are overcome by the amendments to the claims and the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive as to the prior art rejections but have raised new issues of clarity.
As set forth above appropriate correction is required to establish clarity as to the “amount of temperature control required” as well as establish a clearer nexus between the “maximum heating capacity of the first induction heating device” and any changes in temperature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20100132854 A1 teaches the use of one or two induction heaters to control maintain sub-austenitic temperatures of a continuously annealed steel strip.
US 6891139 B2 teaches continuous annealing equipment with a single soaking zone and a plurality of induction heating devices.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights