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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-5 and 10-12 in the reply filed on 5/15/26 is acknowledged. Applicant amended claims 1 and 6 to include feature of information about warpage of the metal sheet. The traversal is on the ground(s) that this added feature is not disclosed or suggested by Yoshimoto. However, this is not found persuasive because prior art combination of Yoshimoto in view of Fujibayashi & Mathies below discloses the added feature. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that elected claims 1-5 and 10-12 are drawn to an apparatus. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (MPEP 2114). Furthermore, examiner notes that, “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” (MPEP 2115). A recitation with respect to the material intended to be worked upon by a claimed apparatus does not impose any structural limitations upon the claimed apparatus. In this case, “metal sheet” is a workpiece material and features based on the workpiece (e.g. warpage of the metal sheet) do not structurally limit the claimed quenching apparatus.
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 1, 3-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimoto et al. (US 2019/0010564, hereafter “Yoshimoto”) in view of Fujibayashi et al. (WO 03/097263 A1, “Fujibayashi”, see attached translation) & Mathies et al. (US 2012/0024435, “Mathies”)
Regarding claim 1, Yoshimoto discloses a quenching apparatus for a metal sheet (figs. 5-9), the quenching apparatus comprising: a water tank 1 configured to pass and immerse the metal sheet 5 in a liquid 2 to cool the metal sheet; a water injection device 4 (jetting device) placed in the water tank (figs. 5-8); and a plurality of restraining roll pairs 7 configured to restrain the metal sheet that is passed in the water tank (figs. 6-8), wherein the water injection device has a plurality of water injection nozzles 14/24 (fig. 6) arranged in a passing direction of the metal sheet 5 on front and back surface sides of the metal sheet so that cooling water is injected in facing directions from the front and back surface sides (see figs. 6-8, [0055-0057]).
Yoshimoto is silent with respect to adjusting a position of each of the plurality of restraining roll pairs based on information about warpage of the metal sheet. However, such technique is known in the art. Fujibayashi (also directed to method and device for cooling steel sheet) discloses a plurality of sets of upper & lower roll pairs during water cooling in conveyance direction to provide uniform cooling of the steel sheet without warpage (abstract). While conveying the steel sheet 1, Fujibayashi teaches moving multiple sets of rolls 2-3 up and down according to the warpage of the steel sheet to adjust the restraining force and avoid large distortion (fig. 1, pg. 3). Consequently, the steel sheet does not warp or buckle during cooling, thereby resulting in flat and uniform steel plate (pg. 4). Similarly, Mathies (also drawn to method and device for cooling and straightening of metal strips- abstract) teaches using pairs of pinch rolls in a cooling installation, wherein each pair of pinch rolls is separately controlled for adjustment of tensile stress to the conveying metal sheet 1 (fig. 1; [0005, 0010-0011, 0024]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a control means for adjusting position of each of the plurality of restraining roll pairs based on condition/warpage of the metal sheet in the quenching apparatus of Yoshimoto because doing so would enable to adjust the restraining force, control tensile stress and avoid buckling or distortion, thereby resulting in manufacture of flat and uniform steel plate, as suggested by teachings of Fujibayashi & Mathies.
As to claims 3-4, Yoshimoto discloses that a roll diameter of restraining rolls 7 is within a range of 50 mm or more and 250 mm or less, wherein the plurality of restraining roll pairs are arranged such that a distance between central axes of the restraining rolls facing each other across the metal sheet is in a range of 40-150 mm, preferably about 100 mm- this distance between central axes in vertical conveying direction is equivalent to roll diameter (D) of 100 mm (figs. 6-8, [0040]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 5, Yoshimoto discloses the quenching apparatus being placed on an exit side of a soaking zone of the continuous annealing equipment for a metal sheet (fig. 3, [0036]).
As to claims 11-12, Yoshimoto discloses the quenching apparatus being placed on an exit side of a soaking zone of the continuous annealing equipment for a metal sheet (fig. 3, [0036]).
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimoto in view of Fujibayashi & Mathies as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawada et al. (JP S62-224640, 1987, see attached document).
As to claim 2, Yoshimoto does not disclose maximum height roughness Rz of surfaces of the plurality of restraining roll pairs. However, Kawada (directed to steel sheet cooling device) teaches providing a cooling roll outer peripheral surface having protective coating and surface roughness Rz ranging from 0.2-10 microns (abstract), which falls within the claimed range of 5-50 microns. Kawada discloses this roller surface roughness improves the cooling effect on the steel sheet (end of para. [0001]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a surface roughness Rz of about 5-10 microns on the plurality of restraining rolls in Yoshimoto in order to improve the cooling effect.
As to claim 10, Yoshimoto already discloses the quenching apparatus being placed on an exit side of a soaking zone of the continuous annealing equipment for a metal sheet (fig. 3, [0036]).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/3/26, 3/13/26, 12/31/24, 1/12/24 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735
Prosecution Insights