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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 7 states “wherein the gas supplied from the nozzle includes dry gas”. It is unclear whether the gas supplied from the nozzle only contains dry gas or if it can contain a mixture of dry gas and some other component which may include moisture. The specification does not provide clarity and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim.
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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2020520408 of Kuran.
Claim 1 claims A dew point control method for a continuous annealing furnace, the method comprising stopping or reducing supply of humidified gas into the furnace, and supplying dry gas along a furnace inner wall of the continuous annealing furnace in the continuous annealing furnace.
Kuran teaches a section and method for cooling a continuous line combining dry cooling and wet cooling in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kuran discloses a cooling section for a continuous annealing furnace, Para[0002]. Kuran teaches a drying and purging system set up to eject a mixture of gas and liquid that helps limit transition times between a product that requires the use of the wet area and a product that does not need to be cooled by the wet area, Para[0026]. Kuran discloses a nozzle configured to inject a liquid or a mixture of gas and liquid, Para[0010]. Therefore, Kuran anticipates all limitations of claim 1.
Claim 7 claims a continuous annealing furnace comprising a nozzle configured to supply gas along a furnace inner wall, wherein the gas supplied from the nozzle includes dry gas.
Kuran teaches a section and method for cooling a continuous line combining dry cooling and wet cooling in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kuran discloses a cooling section for a continuous annealing furnace, Para[0002]. Kuran teaches a drying and purging system set up to eject a mixture of gas and liquid that helps limit transition times between a product that requires the use of the wet area and a product that does not need to be cooled by the wet area, Para[0026]. Kuran discloses a nozzle configured to inject a liquid or a mixture of gas and liquid, Para[0010]. Therefore, Kuran anticipates all limitations of claim 7.
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 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2020520408 of Kuran in view of US2872173 of Munker.
Claim 2 further limits claim 1 by claiming that a temperature of the furnace inner wall of the continuous annealing furnace is at least 30°C higher than a furnace atmosphere temperature in the continuous annealing furnace.
Kuran teaches that the drying and purging system can include equipment configured to heat the walls, Para[0027]. Kuran discloses that the system may include nitrogen knives directed downward in the wet cooling area configured to blow nitrogen onto an inner wall, Para[0028]. While Kuran does not teach the specific numerical limitation of at least 30°C higher, Kuran teaches the claimed device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process, see MPEP 2112.02.
Munker discloses a method and apparatus for heat treating materials in a continuous operating furnace in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Munker teaches that for preventing any cooling of the material to be treated in the measuring zone, it is preferable to keep the temperature of the walls of the furnace somewhat higher than the temperature of the material to be treated. In the case of annealing furnaces, a difference in temperature of about 30 to 50' C has proven to be satisfactory, Para[0064]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, based on the teachings of Kuran and Munker, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat the furnace inner wall to at least 30°C higher than the furnace atmosphere temperature in order to prevent cooling of the material to be treated. Thus, Kuran in view of Munker covers all limitations of claim 2.
Claim 9 further limits claim 7 by comprising a heating mechanism configured to heat the furnace inner wall to a temperature at least 30 °C higher than a furnace atmosphere temperature.
Kuran teaches that the drying and purging system can include equipment configured to heat the walls, Para[0027]. Kuran discloses that the system may include nitrogen knives directed downward in the wet cooling area configured to blow nitrogen onto an inner wall. While Kuran does not teach the specific numerical limitation of at least 30°C higher, Kuran teaches the claimed device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process, see MPEP 2112.02.
Munker discloses a method and apparatus for heat treating materials in a continuous operating furnace in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Munker teaches that for preventing any cooling of the material to be treated in the measuring zone, it is preferable to keep the temperature of the walls of the furnace somewhat higher than the temperature of the material to be treated. In the case of annealing furnaces, a difference in temperature of about 30 to 50' C has proven to be satisfactory, Para[0064]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, based on the teachings of Kuran and Munker, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat the furnace inner wall to at least 30°C higher than the furnace atmosphere temperature in order to prevent cooling of the material to be treated. Thus, Kuran in view of Munker covers all limitations of claim 9.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2020520408 of Kuran in view of JP61253327 of Shogo.
Claim 3 further limits claim 1 by claiming that a furnace dew point is changed from a dew point of 5 °C or more to a dew point of less than 0 °C.
Kuran teaches a drying and purging system that changes the dew point within the furnace, Para[0024]. While Kuran does not specifically teach the numerical limitations for the dew point recited in claim 3, Kuran teaches the claimed device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process, see MPEP 2112.02.
Shogo discloses how to lower the dew point of a heating furnace in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Shogo teaches a method where operation starts when the dew point reaches around 115 °C and goes to a stable dew point of -40°C, Para[0003]. Shogo teaches that an object of the present invention is to provide a dew point lowering method that shortens the time required for lowering the dew point, advances the start of furnace operation, and greatly improves operational efficiency, Para[0004]. Therefore, based on the teachings of Kuran and Shogo, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the dew point of 5 °C or more to a dew point of less than 0 °C in order to advance the start of furnace operation and greatly improve operational efficiency. Thus, Kuran in view of Shogo covers all limitations of claim 3.
Claim 10 further limits claim 7 by claiming a continuous hot-dip galvanizing line comprising: the continuous annealing furnace according to claim 7; and a coating apparatus that follows the continuous annealing furnace.
While Kuran teaches a continuous annealing furnace, Kuran does not specifically mention a hot-dip galvanizing line.
Shogo teaches that in a continuous hot-dip galvanizing process, it is essential that the material be subjected to heat treatment for annealing and cleaning purposes before plating. In such heating furnaces, when the furnace is newly built or renovated, the refractories contain a large amount of moisture, and the refractories also absorb moisture when the furnace is stopped for a long period of time for repairs or the like, Para[0002]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the continuous annealing furnace disclosed in Kuran in a hot-dip galvanizing process because in such heating furnaces the refractories contain a large amount of moisture. Thus, Kuran in view of Shogo covers all limitations of claim 10.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2020520408 of Kuran in view of US3807714 of Hollyer further in view of CN104673989 of Qiu .
Claim 4 further limits claim 1 by claiming that an angle formed between the dry gas injected from inside the furnace toward the furnace inner wall and the furnace inner wall in the continuous annealing furnace is 5° or more and 45° or less, and a jet velocity of the dry gas impinging on the furnace inner wall is controlled to be 0.8 m/s or more.
Kuran teaches that the drying and purging system can include equipment configured to heat the walls, Para[0027]. While Kuran does not teach the specific numerical limitation of 5° to 45°, Kuran discloses that the system may include nitrogen knives directed downward in the wet cooling area configured to blow nitrogen onto an inner wall, Para[0028]. Figures 1 and 2 of Kuran also show that the gas knives, 17, are angled with respect to the inner wall.
Hollyer discloses an apparatus for the quenching of pipe in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Hollyer teaches nozzles dispensing the quenching medium against the pipe, Para[0005]. Hollyer discloses that it has been found that this arrangement whereby the angle included between the curtain and the pipe wall at contact is less than 45° and can be as small as 10° provides a greater duration of contact between the water and the wall of the pipe, reduced reflection, and constantly greater heat transfer to the water, Para[0020]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, based on the teachings of Kuran and Hollyer, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the nitrogen knives so that an angle formed between the dry gas injected from inside the furnace toward the furnace inner wall and the furnace inner wall in the continuous annealing furnace is 5° or more and 45° or less in order to reduce reflection and achieve greater heat transfer.
Qiu discloses a gas sealing device and method for soaking zone of continuous annealing furnace in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Qiu teaches nozzles with hot gas injected through them, Para[0011]. Qiu discloses a jet velocity of 30m/s to 70m/s, Para[0011]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Qui teaches that the technical problem to be solved by the present invention is to provide a continuous annealing furnace soaking section gas sealing device and method, which can effectively prevent the rise of the hot gas flow in the soaking section and stabilize the furnace pressure of the soaking section, Para[0006]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a jet velocity greater than 0.8 m/s to stabilize the furnace pressure.
Thus, Kuran in view of Hollyer further in view of Qiu covers all limitations of claim 4.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2020520408 of Kuran in view of WO2015129202 of Takeda.
Claim 5 further limits claim 1 by claiming a continuous annealing method for a steel sheet, the method comprising controlling a furnace dew point using the dew point control method according to claim 1.
While Kuran teaches an invention for a continuous annealing or galvanizing line for steel strips, Kuran does not disclose steel sheets.
Takeda teaches a method for controlling dew point of reduction furnace, and reduction furnace in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Takeda discloses that in recent years, in the fields of automobiles, household appliances, building materials, etc., there is an increasing demand for high-tensile strength steel that can be used for weight reduction of structures and the like. As a high-tensile strength steel, for example, a steel sheet having Si excellent in hole expandability by containing Si in steel, or a steel plate having Si or Al to retain residual γ (retained γ) are easy to form and a steel sheet with good ductility is obtained, Para[0002]. Takeda also teaches continuous hot dip galvanizing, Para[0011]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the furnace dew point as disclosed in Kuran for a continuous annealing method for a steel sheet because of the increase in demand for high-tensile strength steel sheets taught by Takeda. Thus, Kuran in view of Takeda covers all limitations of claim 5. Claim 6 is rejected as it depends on claim 5.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2020520408 of Kuran in view of WO2015129202 of Takeda further in view of JP61.
Claim 6 further limits claim 5 by claiming a steel sheet manufacturing method comprising manufacturing a high-tensile-strength steel sheet, a hot-dip galvanized steel sheet, or a galvannealed steel sheet using the continuous annealing method according to claim 5.
While Kuran teaches an invention for a continuous annealing or galvanizing line for steel strips, Kuran does not disclose steel sheets or hot-dip galvanizing.
Takeda teaches a method for controlling dew point of reduction furnace, and reduction furnace in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Takeda discloses that in recent years, in the fields of automobiles, household appliances, building materials, etc., there is an increasing demand for high-tensile strength steel that can be used for weight reduction of structures and the like. As a high-tensile strength steel, for example, a steel sheet having Si excellent in hole expandability by containing Si in steel, or a steel plate having Si or Al to retain residual γ (retained γ) are easy to form and a steel sheet with good ductility is obtained, Para[0002]. Takeda also teaches continuous hot dip galvanizing, Para[0011]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the furnace dew point as disclosed in Kuran for a continuous annealing method for a hot dipped galvanized steel sheet because of the increase demand for high-tensile strength steel sheets taught by Takeda. Thus, Kuran in view of Takeda covers all limitations of claim 6.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2020520408 of Kuran in view of US3807714 of Hollyer.
Claim 8 further limits claim 7 by claiming that the nozzle configured to inject the gas is provided on a furnace top wall and/or a furnace side wall in the furnace, and an angle formed between the gas injected from the nozzle toward the furnace inner wall and the furnace inner wall is 5° or more and 45° or less.
Kuran teaches that the drying and purging system can include equipment configured to heat the walls. They can be located inside or outside the wall, Para[0027]. While Kuran does not teach the specific numerical limitation of 5° to 45°, Kuran discloses that the system may include nitrogen knives directed downward in the wet cooling area configured to blow nitrogen onto an inner wall, Para[0028]. Figures 1 and 2 of Kuran also show that the gas knives, 17, are angled with respect to the inner wall.
Hollyer discloses an apparatus for the quenching of pipe in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Hollyer teaches nozzles dispensing the quenching medium against the pipe, Para[0005]. Hollyer discloses that it has been found that this arrangement whereby the angle included between the curtain and the pipe wall at contact is less than 45° and can be as small as 10° provides a greater duration of contact between the water and the wall of the pipe, reduced reflection, and constantly greater heat transfer to the water, Para[0020]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, based on the teachings of Kuran and Hollyer, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the nitrogen knives so that an angle formed between the dry gas injected from inside the furnace toward the furnace inner wall and the furnace inner wall in the continuous annealing furnace is 5° or more and 45° or less in order to reduce reflection and achieve greater heat transfer. Thus, Kuran in view of Hollyer covers all limitations of claim 8.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2020520408 of Kuran in view of WO2015129202 of Takeda further in view of WO2018003407 of Maeda.
Claim 11 further limits claim 7 by claiming a galvannealing line comprising: the continuous annealing furnace according to claim 7; a coating apparatus that follows the continuous annealing furnace; and an alloying furnace.
Kuran discloses that the cooling section of the present invention is capable of producing steel with a high degree of mechanical properties that can undergo a galvanizing step directly upon exiting the cooling section without the need for intermediate chemical treatments, Para[0011]. This corresponds to the claimed coating apparatus. Kuran does not specifically teach galvannealing or an alloying furnace.
Takeda teaches a galvannealed steel sheet, Para[0003, 0034, 0039]. Takeda discloses that in recent years, in the fields of automobiles, household appliances, building materials, etc., there is an increasing demand for high-tensile strength steel that can be used for weight reduction of structures and the like. As a high-tensile strength steel, for example, a steel sheet having Si excellent in hole expandability by containing Si in steel, or a steel plate having Si or Al to retain residual γ (retained γ) are easy to form and a steel sheet with good ductility is obtained, Para[0002]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the furnace dew point as disclosed in Kuran for a continuous annealing method for a hot dipped galvannealed steel sheet because of the increase demand for high-tensile strength steel sheets taught by Takeda.
Maeda teaches high strength galvannealed steel sheet and production method thereof in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Maeda teaches an alloying furnace after the annealing, Para[0002]. Maeda discloses that in recent years, in the fields of automobiles, household appliances, building materials, etc., surface treated steel plates imparting rust prevention properties to material steel plates, among which alloying hot dip galvanized steel sheets having excellent rust prevention properties are used, Para[0002]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the dew point control method disclosed in Kuran for a continuous annealing method followed by an alloying furnace in order to alloy the steel to impart rust prevention properties.
Thus, Kuran in view of Takeda further in view of Maeda covers all limitations of claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733