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 .
The amendment filed 8/1/25 has been considered and entered. Claims 1-19 remain in the application with claims 11-19 having been withdrawn from consideration as being directed toward a non-elected invention as detailed in paper filed 2/18/25. Claims 1-10 remain the claims for prosecution thereof.
Considering the amendment filed 8/1/25, the 35 USC 112 and 102/103 rejections have been withdrawn. The following rejections have been necessitated by the amendment.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Maitra et al. (5,113,557) in combination with Dembrowski et al. (2009/0068495) and Inard-Charvin et al. (2016/0161247).
Maitra et al. (5,113,557) teaches apparatus ad method for producing galvanized tubing having at least one galvanized surface. The steel strip is roll-formed and welded to complete the tubing and the welded seam is scarfed to remove irregularities, a quantity of acid solution is applied to only the scarfed area to react with oxidized metal and then rinsed leaving the non-scarfed area intact. The tube is then heated to a temperature to sufficiently cause the galvanized coating to begin to flow and the tubing is re-galvanized to improve the galvanized outer surface (abstract). During the re-galvanizing the tubing is heated to reflow the existing galvanized coating thereon to flow and then is passed into a galvanizing bath and combined with the flowed galvanizing material is mixed to form a new galvanized coating thereon (col. 4, lines 22-35).
Maitra et al. (5,113,557) fails to teach a “damaged zinc coating” and measuring/detecting thickness.
Dembrowski et al. (2009/0068495) teaches a method and system for repairing reconditioning and re-metallizing welded area in a steel electrical conduit (abstract). Dembrowski et al. (2009/0068495) teaches repairing or replacing a portion of the zinc coating lost due to welding [0033]-[0035].
Inard-Charvin et al. (2016/0161247) teaches a method for measuring the thickness of a galvanizing layer (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maitra et al. (5,113,557) process to perform a repairing of the galvanizing layer and measuring the thickness of the galvanized rejuvenating layer as taught by Dembrowski et al. (2009/0068495) and Inard-Charvin et al. (2016/0161247) with the expectation of producing a rejuvenated zinc coating.
Regarding claim 1, Maitra et al. (5,113,557) teaches step A of checking the galvanized part is met by the welding of the tubing and hence removal of the galvanized coating in that area meeting the claimed “damaged”. Maitra et al. (5,113,557) teaches Step B is met by scarfing, cleaning, pickling and rinsing steps prior to re-galvanizing (col. 2, line 55 – col. 3, line 9). Maitra et al. (5,113,557) teaches Step C is met by flowing the galvanized coating and dipping in a galvanizing bath to form a coherent galvanized coating (col. 4, lines 24-28). Dembrowski et al. (2009/0068495) repairing or re-metallizing the galvanized coating while and Inard-Charvin et al. (2016/0161247) teaches measuring the thickness of the galvanized applied layer.
Regarding claim 2, Maitra et al. (5,113,557) teaches the type, condition and material thickness of coating is removed and hence meets the claimed checking.
Regarding claim 3, Maitra et al. (5,113,557) teaches the welded part is viewed and using a camera would have been withing the skill of one practicing in the art. Inard-Charvin et al. (2016/0161247) teaches using a light beam source which also would be like using a camera or other detecting means.
Regarding clam 4, Maitra et al. (5,113,557) teaches cleaning step is a part of preparing the steel tubing for galvanizing (col. 4, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 5, Maitra et al. (5,113,557) teaches cleaning including a circular brush rotating to remove oxides thereon (col. 3, lines 61-68).
Regarding claim 6, Maitra et al. (5,113,557) teaches “measuring and checking” by detecting no galvanizing material at the welded area and a corrective forming is reflowing to existing galvanized coating and adding to a galvanizing bath (col. 4, lines 22-30).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Maitra et al. (5,113,557) teaches roll-forming the tubing (col. 3, lines 10-13).
Regarding claim 8, Maitra et al. (5,113,557) teaches pickling the galvanized steel, rinsing, drying and re-galvanizing the steel tubing (col. 4, line 1 -32).
Regarding claim 10, Maitra et al. (5,113,557) teaches a welder for splicing one end of a roll of strip steel to another end of a roll of striped steel, i.e. plurality of individual parts connected.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued Maitra et al. (5,113,557) fails to teach a “damaged zinc coating” and measuring/detecting thickness.
The Examiner agrees and has applied Dembrowski et al. (2009/0068495) and Inard-Charvin et al. (2016/0161247) to teach these limitations as detailed above.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6:30-5PM - Fri OFF.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715