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 .
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 4-6 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 4 recites “a step of adjusting an output of the first induction heating device and adjusting the furnace temperature of the second soaking zone in Lines 10-12. It is unclear how an “output” of the first induction heating device is affected by “adjusting” and what action is taken regarding any ‘adjustment.’ For example, it is unclear if this references quantity, quality, or some other factor entirely.
It is further unclear what is meant by “output” of “the first induction heating device” and whether this is in reference to temperature or the electric steel sheets. Applicant is required to clearly establish any actionable and repeatable method step with positive active claim language.
Claim 4 recites “a furnace temperature” in Line 11. Claim 5 recites “the furnace temperature” in Lines 2-3. There is a literal lack of antecedent basis for “a furnace temperature” and “the furnace temperature” as no furnace has been established as present within the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites in Lines 2-4 “the step of adjusting the output of the first induction heating device and adjusting the furnace temperature of the second soaking zone uses a transformation rate control model constructed for each product.”
These limitations present the following issues of clarity:
It is unclear how the “output” of the first induction heating device is “adjusted” and what action is taken regarding the “output.” Applicant is required to clearly establish any actionable and repeatable method step with positive active claim language.
It is unclear what is meant by “output” of “the first induction heating device” and whether this is in reference to temperature or the electric steel sheets.
It is unclear how “the step of adjusting the output” “uses a transformation rate control model.” A clearer nexus must be established between an output, an adjustment, and a transformation rate control model.
There is a literal lack of antecedent basis for any “product,” rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required to establish any such “product,” “output,” or other claimed components of the method.
Claim 6 recites “A1 transformation temperature” in Lines 12, 14, 17, and 20. Claim 6 recites “A3 transformation temperature” in Lines 17-18 and 21. While a term of art, there is no limitation connecting the A1 and A3 transformation temperatures to any specific carbon content, phase of matter, or specified temperature range. The instant Specification describes A1 transformation temperature as both a range of about 600 °C to 730 °C at [0026], the singular temperature of 750 °C at [0027], and the singular temperature of 730 °C at [0031]. The instant Specification describes A3 transformation temperature as both a range of about 750 °C to 900 °C at [0030], and the singular temperature of 900 °C at [0031]. Because the A1 and A3 transformation temperatures have not been clearly defined, the broad recitation of A1 transformation temperature and A3 transformation temperature render the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzumi JP 2008175761 A in view of Onoda et al. WO 9700975 A1 and Hino et al. WO 2019003727 A1.
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Fukuzumi ‘761 teaches continuous annealing equipment for steel sheets comprising a heating zone and a soaking zone in order of the heating zone and the soaking zone, the soaking zone including a first soaking zone (SS1) and a second soaking zone provided after the first soaking zone (SS2).
Fukuzumi ‘761 does not expressly teach a first induction heating device provided between the first soaking zone and the second soaking zone.
However, Onoda et al. ‘975 teaches an induction heating device which may be provided at any portion of the soaking zone within a continuous annealing line in order to control rapid heating (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to place the induction heating device of Onoda et al. ‘975 at the ends of each soaking zone in Fukuzumi ‘761 in order to control the maintenance of a rapidly achieved soaking temperature during heat treatment at each stage of soaking based on the teachings of Onoda et al. ‘975 at [0022].
Fukuzumi ‘761 does not expressly teach a measuring device configured to measure austenite fractions of the steel sheets at an exit of the second soaking zone.
However, Hino et al. ‘727 teaches an austenite phase fraction measurement device placed after a heating and soaking zone in order to accurately control the quality of produced steel sheets produced in a continuous annealing process (Abstract)[0084].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to place a phase fraction measuring device at the end of the second soaking zone in the continuous annealing line of Fukuzumi ‘761 in order to increase the quality and efficiency of steel sheet manufacturing based on the teachings of Hino et al. ‘727 at [0084], meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Regarding Claim 3, Fukuzumi ‘761 teaches the limitations set forth above but does not expressly teach a hot dip galvanizing bath.
However, Hino et al. ‘727 teaches a continuous annealing line comprising a hot dip galvanizing bath following the continuous annealing equipment for steel sheets comprising the heating zone and the soaking zone in the order of the heating zone and the soaking zone [0009, 0057].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify Fukuzumi ‘761 by adding the hot dip galvanizing bath treatment of Hino et al. ‘727 following the soaking zones of Fukuzumi ‘761 in order to increase the strength of the cold-rolled steel base d on the teachings of Hino et al. ‘727 at [0005-0006].
Regarding Claims 4-5, modified Fukuzumi ‘761 teaches the limitations set forth above but does not expressly teach a transformation rate control model.
However, notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, Hino et al. ‘727 teaches adjusting an output of an induction heating device based on austenite fractions of steel sheets measured by the measuring device [0017]. Hino et al. ‘727 further teaches a transformation rate control schematic (meeting the limitation for a transformation rate control model) is used to adjust the output of the induction heating device and furnace temperatures within the soaking zone [0017-0019].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to incorporate the measuring device and schematic of Hino et al. ‘727 into the continuous annealing line of Fukuzumi ‘761 in order to obtain high-strength steels based on the teachings of Hino et al. ‘727 at [0002], meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Regarding Claim 7, Fukuzumi ‘761 teaches annealing cold-rolled steel sheets, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 8, Fukuzumi ‘761 teaches the limitations set forth above but does not expressly teach a hot dip galvanizing bath.
However, Hino et al. ‘727 teaches a continuous annealing line comprising a hot dip galvanizing bath following the continuous annealing equipment for steel sheets comprising the heating zone and the soaking zone in the order of the heating zone and the soaking zone [0009, 0057].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify Fukuzumi ‘761 by adding the hot dip galvanizing bath treatment of Hino et al. ‘727 following the soaking zones of Fukuzumi ‘761 in order to increase the strength of the cold-rolled steel base d on the teachings of Hino et al. ‘727 at [0005-0006].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzumi JP 2008175761 A in view of Onoda et al. WO 9700975 A1 and Hino et al. WO 2019003727 A1 as applied to Claims 1-5 and 7-8 above further in view of Sakai et al. JP H10152728 A.
Regarding Claim 6, Modified Fukuzumi ‘761 teaches the limitations set forth above. Fukuzumi ‘761 does not expressly detail a heat treatment within its continuous annealing line.
However, Sakai et al. ‘728 teaches heating the steel sheets of a continuous annealing line in the heating zone so that a temperature of each of the steel sheets increases in a temperature range lower than an A1 transformation temperature, maintaining the temperature of each of the steel sheets in a temperature range lower than the A1 transformation temperature (Abstract), heating a first induction device at a rate of 100 °C/s to 1000 °C/s, overlapping the instantly claimed range of 10 °C/s or more and 200 °C/s or less [0006] to a temperature range which, notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, is sufficient to achieve austenitization [0015], meeting the limitation of more than an A1 transformation temperature and less than an A3 transformation temperature [0006], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In light of the teachings of Sakai, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to conduct the heating, holding, increasing in the heating zone, first soaking zone, and second soaking zones of the continuous annealing line of modified Fukuzumi ‘761, in order to achieve a heat treatment appropriate for austenite steel, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
JP S6269160 A teaches a method of measuring the austenite phase fraction of steel sheet materials within continuous annealing lines.
EP 0779370 A1 teaches a continuous annealing line with induction heating means within the soaking zone.
US 9598753 B2 teaches a high strength galvanized steel sheet hot rolled within austenite transition temperatures.
Myalapalli, Jaya Krishna. "Performance assessment of steel reheating furnace." 2015 International Conference on Energy Systems and Applications. IEEE, 2015. teaches a continuous annealing line with four heating zones and two soaking zones.
Strommer, Stephan, et al. "Hierarchical nonlinear optimization-based controller of a continuous strip annealing furnace." Control Engineering Practice 73 (2018): 40-55. teaches achieving target temperatures within the heating and soaking zones of a continuous annealing line.
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