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 the Claims
Claims 14-19 are pending wherein claims 17-19 are currently under examination and claims 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a non-elected forming method. Applicant’s election of claims 17-19 was made with traverse in the Response filed on June 25, 2026. Applicant argues that the inventions are not independent and distinct; they share essential technical features including a “reheating device equipped with a heat source configured to irradiate the steel plate with infrared rays” and are directed to closely related aspects of a single inventive concept: and restriction is improper in view of the lack of a serious examination burden. In response, the Examiner notes that prior to this response a special technical of the infrared rays was lacking. However, the previously indicated Group II invention fails to make a contribution over the prior art for the reasons discussed below. Additionally, the Examiner notes that although some of the searching may overlap, to examine both of these inventions would require not only additional searching but also would require consideration of additional 112 issues, consideration of the combinability of prior art references, the formulation of rejections, etc. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tawa (CN 110079652) in view of Tomita (US 10,718,569).
In regard to claim 17, Tawa (CN ‘652) discloses carburizing steel components such as steel sheet comprising heating to a temperature higher than the austenite transition temperature maintaining at that temperature in a heat treatment device that would include an infrared heater and then quenching in a cooling device where reheating is conducted during the quenching in the heat treatment chamber (pages 9-10 of Translation and claim 6). Tawa (CN ‘652) discloses wherein a portion of the austenite is converted into pearlite and there forms a co-precipitation having an organization mixed with austenite, a precursor of the co-precipitation ferrite and pearlite wherein the pearlite would have a coarse structure and there would also be a fine pearlite structure.
Tawa (CN ‘652) discloses processing steel sheet as set forth above, but Tawa (CN ‘652) does not specify wherein a cover would be configured to cover a first region of the steel sheet and there would be a plurality of holes formed in the surface.
Tomita (‘569) discloses a jig designed to hold steel workpieces with a net of woven strands (holes) made of biaxial or triaxial carbon fibers in order to stably hold workpieces for treatment and provide long lasting usage (columns 1-2, Example 1 and Figures).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to modify heat treatment system, as disclosed by Tawa (CN ‘652), by using a jig designed to hold steel workpieces with a net of woven strands (holes), as disclosed by Tomita (‘569), in order to stably hold workpieces for treatment and provide long lasting usage, as disclosed by Tomita (‘569) (columns 1-2, Example 1 and Figures).
With respect to the recitation “to be partially plastically deformed by hot press forming” in claim 17, this recitation would be an intended use of the structure formed from use of the heat treatment system where hot press forming is not being claimed. MPEP 2111.02 II.
In regard to claim 18, Tawa (CN ‘652) discloses carburizing steel components such as steel sheet comprising heating to a temperature higher than the austenite transition temperature maintaining at that temperature in a heat treatment device that would include an infrared heater and then quenching in a cooling device where reheating is conducted during the quenching in the heat treatment chamber (pages 9-10 of Translation and claim 6). Tawa (CN ‘652) discloses wherein a portion of the austenite is converted into pearlite and there forms a co-precipitation having an organization mixed with austenite, a precursor of the co-precipitation ferrite and pearlite wherein the pearlite would have a coarse structure and there would also be a fine pearlite structure.
With respect to the recitation “to be partially plastically deformed by hot press forming” in claim 18, this recitation would be an intended use of the structure formed from use of the heat treatment system where hot press forming is not being claimed. MPEP 2111.02 II.
With respect to the recitation “for which a plating layer of aluminum added with silicon is formed on a surface” in claim 18 and “alloys a whole of the plating layer, to have a composition ratio of iron which is not less than a composition ratio of iron of an γ-phase alloy of iron, aluminum and silicon, and set a thickness of a diffusion layer formed on the side of the steel sheet on which the plating layer is formed of not more than 10 µM” in claim 18, inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP 2115.
In regard to claim 19, Tomita (‘569) suggests a box-like body used in conjunction with the net of woven carbon fiber strands (claim 6 and Figures 1A and 1B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Reinhold et al. (US 7,540,993).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 4 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights