DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 25-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on April 15, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 14-24 in the reply filed on April 15, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the statement detailed in the restriction requirement is a cursory oversimplification of the claimed embodiments, and indeed completely ignores numerous additional technical elements and limitations that are common between the apparatus claims 14-24 and method claims 25-31. Independent claims 14 and 25 recite much more than the subject matter summarized within the Office Action, including various rolls, a housing and a chamber that carry specific operational capabilities and relationships to one another.
This is not found persuasive because Clin does teach the claimed
An annealing furnace (see 30 of Clin) (fig. 3; para. 49-50);
an over-ageing chamber (see strip accumulation section 14 & chamber 15 of Clin) (fig. 3-5; para. 52-53);
a plurality of deflector rolls (see rollers 17/18) that are vertically spaced apart from each other, the deflector roll (see roller 18) is moveable relative to rollers (see roller 17), where vertically moving the deflector roll (see roller 18) changes the retention time (fig. 3-5; para. 52-53);
the deflector roll (see roller 18) that is movably supported at a particular position with a roll support(s) (see lifting device 24), the roller support(s) are within a housing (gas tight walls 27) and the roll support(s) has a shaft that extends through a wall of over-ageing chamber (see chamber 15) (fig. 3-5; para. 52-53).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the cross reference to related application is missing from the beginning of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 14-24 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.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claims 1 and 7-9, the following phrases "can be moved" or" can be run" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
For purposes of compact prosecution, the phrases are interpreted as ‘is run’ or ‘is moved’.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 14-17, 20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clin (US 2020/0131598).
In regards claim 14, Clin teaches a continuous galvanizing line comprising:
an annealing furnace (30) (fig. 3; para. 49-50);
an over-ageing chamber (see strip accumulation section 14 & chamber 15) (fig. 3-5; para. 52-53);
a plurality of deflector rolls (see rollers 17/18) that are vertically spaced apart from each other, the deflector roll (see roller 18) is moveable relative to rollers (see roller 17), where vertically moving the deflector roll (see roller 18) changes the retention time (fig. 3-5; para. 52-53);
the deflector roll (see roller 18) that is movably supported at a particular position with a roll support(s) (see lifting device 24), the roller support(s) are within a housing (gas tight walls 27) and the roll support(s) has a shaft that extends through a wall of over-ageing chamber (see chamber 15) (fig. 3-5; para. 52-53).
In regards to claims 15-17, Clin teaches the plurality/several of the deflector roller-18 are vertically moved (fig. 4-5; para. 52-53).
In regards claim 20, Clin teaches the over-ageing chamber is positioned ahead a coating section (8) which comprises a zinc bath (fig. 3; para. 49).
In regards claims 22-24, Clin teaches a cooling section (7) is positioned between annealing furnace and the over-ageing chamber (fig. 3; para. 49-51).
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.
Claims 14-18 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toda (US 3,805,571) in view of Clin (US 2020/0131598).
In regards to claim 14, Toda teaches continuous annealing furnace comprising:
a heating chamber (4) and a soaking chamber (5) (annealing furnace) (fig. 4; col. 4, lines 50-60);
an over-aging chamber (7) which is heated with electrical heating and is positioned downstream of the soaking chamber (fig. 4; col. 6, lines 60-65);
a plurality of rollers (12) is shown to guide the steel strip (2) within the over-aging chamber, the plurality of rollers are spaced apart from one another to provide a meandering path withing the over-aging chamber (fig. 4; col. 5, lines 1-10).
Toda does not explicitly teach at least one of the deflector rolls is moved in a vertical direction to alter a length of the metal strip in the over-ageing chamber, thereby altering a time of retention of the metal strip in the over-ageing chamber, the at least one movable deflector roll is supported or secured in a particular position with a roll support that is accommodated in a housing; and the roll support is run into the over-ageing chamber.
However, Clin teaches a continuous galvanizing line comprising a strip accumulation chamber-15 comprising:
a plurality of see rollers 17/18 that are vertically spaced apart from each other, the rollers-18 are moveable relative to rollers-17, where vertically moving the rollers-18 changes the retention time within in the strip accumulation chamber-15 (fig. 3-5; para. 52-53);
the rollers-18 are movably supported at a particular position by a lifting device-24, the lifting device-24 are within a housing provided as gas tight walls 27 and the lifting device-24 has a shaft that extends through a wall of over-ageing chamber (see chamber 15) to the rollers-18 (fig. 3-5; para. 52-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the movable rollers in the strip accumulation chamber of Clin onto the over-aging chamber of Toda because Clin teaches it will provide tension management and allows for changes to running speed (para. 7, 51).
In regards to claims 15-17, Toda and Clin as discussed, where Clin teaches the plurality/several of the rollers-18 are vertically moved (fig. 4-5; para. 52-53).
In regards claim 18, Toda and Clin as discussed, where Toda teaches the over-aging chamber is electrically heated (col. 4, lines 60-65).
In regards claim 22-24, Toda and Clin as discussed, where Toda teaches a cooling chamber is positioned between soaking chamber (5) and the over-aging chamber (7) (fig. 4; col. 6, lines 55-65).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toda and Clin as applied to claims 14-18 and 22-24 above, and further in view of Yoshida (US 4,256,519).
In regards claim 19, Toda and Clin as discussed, but do not explicitly teach the over-aging chamber is heated by delivering heated gas to the over-aging chamber.
However, Yoshida teaches an over-aging furnace comprising a gas circulation apparatus which uses a gas heater (5) to heat air that is supplied/circulated within the over-aging furnace (fig. 1; col. 5, lines 30-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the gas circulation apparatus which heat the gas supplied to the over-aging furnace of Yoshida onto the over-aging chamber of Toda and Clin because Yoshida teaches it will aid in maintaining the over-aging chamber temperature (col. 5, lines 20-25).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toda and Clin as applied to claims 14-18 and 22-24 above, and further in view of Osuka (US 20240158885).
In regards claim 20-21, Toda and Clin as discussed, where Clin teaches a coating section (8) which comprises a zinc bath, is positioned downstream of the strip accumulation chamber-15 (fig. 3; para. 49).
Toda and Clin do not explicitly teach the over-ageing chamber (11) is positioned ahead of a coating plant and the coating plant is an electrogalvanizing plant.
However Osuka teaches a hot-dip galvanizing and continuous annealing apparatus comprising: soaking zone-7 that is positioned upstream of a galvanizing tank/zinc pot (11, coating plant) which provides a plating process. Osuka teaches the plating process may be provide as electro-galvanizing (fig. 1; para. 42, 92).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the electro-galvanizing provided by the galvanizing tank/zinc pot of Osuka onto the coating section of Toda and Clin because Osuka teaches it will enable minimization of fluctuations in mechanical properties of products (para. 13, 35).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights