DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-23 are pending and currently under review.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 8/30/2024 merely lists “all office actions” pertaining to US application serial number 18/678,504 under item 1) of the non-patent literature document section. However, no documents have been provided, such that this item has not been considered because there are no documents to consider.
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 23 is 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. Claim 23 recites that at least one pin is position a first distance from “the quench plate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the aforementioned quench plate refers to a bottom quench plate or a top quench plate. The examiner interprets the aforementioned limitation to be met by either a top or bottom quench plate.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harasty (US 2,638,337).
Regarding claim 1, Harasty discloses a quench block for continuous steel strips [col.1 ln.1-5]; wherein said quench block includes a lower block (16) having a plate (29) and depicted to have sidewalls on the periphery of said lower block (16) that naturally define a space through which elongated steel strip (S) moves, which is considered to meet the claimed features of a lower cooling block, quench plate, and pair of sidewalls respectively [col.2 ln.28-56, fig.5-13]. Harasty further teaches an upper block (18) which is depicted to be connected (ie. mounted) to said lower block (16), said upper block (18) further include a plate (40) and having block spacers as means for adjusting a distance between the upper and lower blocks, which meets the claimed features of a front upper cooling block and adjustable quench plate respectively [col.2 ln.28 to col.5 ln.52, fig.1-2, 5-13].
Regarding claims 2-5 and 7, Harasty discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the aforementioned block spacers of Harasty meet the limitation of first and second actuators according to broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “actuator” as merely a device that serves to control something. Said spacers of Harasty are further disclosed to be in contact with the upper and lower plates and blocks, which meets the limitation of “mounted” and “engages” according to broadest reasonable interpretation as merely to placing.
Regarding claims 10-11, Harasty discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). Harasty further discloses cooling channels (44, 48, 52, 56, 58) in the top and bottom blocks [fig.5-9].
Claim(s) 1-11, 15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Egelhaaf (DE971962, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Egelhaaf discloses device for quenching steel strips [0001]; wherein said device includes a lower part (7) having a plate (8) and depicted to have sidewalls on the periphery of plate (8) that naturally define a space through which elongated steel strip (1) moves, which is considered to meet the claimed features of a lower cooling block, quench plate, and pair of sidewalls respectively [fig.2-5]. Egelhaaf further teaches an upper part (11) which is depicted to be connected (ie. mounted) to said lower part (7), said upper part (11) further include a plate (9) and having screw devices as means for adjusting a distance between the upper and lower parts, which meets the claimed features of a front upper cooling block and adjustable quench plate respectively [col.2 ln.28 to col.5 ln.52, fig.1-2, 5-13].
Regarding the further limitations of claim 15, one of ordinary skill would readily recognize that said screw devices are not dependent on each other and therefore meet the limitation of independent actuators. Egelhaaf further depicts said screws as pins that move to adjust a position of the top part relative to the bottom part.
Regarding claims 2-7, Egelhaaf discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). Egelhaaf further expressly depicts that the screw devices are connected through the top quench part (ie. mounted) and adjust the height/tolerance through engagement with the lower quench part, wherein multiple screw devices are present and aligned along an axis parallel to the conveying direction of steel (1) [fig.2-5].
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Egelhaaf discloses the system of claims 1 and 15 (see previous). The examiner notes that the aforementioned screw devices of Egelhaaf further meet the limitation of a pair of bolts that would naturally restriction movement between the top and bottom quench devices in a direction that is parallel to the conveying direction of the steel strip [fig.2-5].
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Egelhaaf discloses the system of claims 8 and 17 (see previous). Egelhaaf further depicts sidewalls of a lower quench part, wherein said sidewalls rise above a lower edge of a part of the top quench part and would therefore naturally restrain movement in a direction perpendicular to the conveying direction of the steel [fig.2-5].
Regarding claims 10-11 and 19-20, Egelhaaf discloses the system of claims 8 and 15 (see previous). Egelhaaf further discloses that the top and bottom parts are water cooled, which one of ordinary skill would readily understand to mean that cooling channels are present [0014].
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.
Claim(s) 1-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harasty (US 2,638,337) in view of Egelhaaf (DE971962, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Harasty discloses a quench block for continuous steel strips [col.1 ln.1-5]; wherein said quench block includes a lower block (16) having a plate (29) and depicted to have sidewalls on the periphery of said lower block (16) that naturally define a space through which elongated steel strip (S) moves, which is considered to meet the claimed features of a lower cooling block, quench plate, and pair of sidewalls respectively [col.2 ln.28-56, fig.5-13]. Harasty further teaches an upper block (18) including a plate (40), which meets the claimed features of a front upper cooling block and quench plate respectively [col.2 ln.28 to col.5 ln.52, fig.1-2, 5-13].
Harasty does not expressly disclose that the upper block is mounted on the lower block or that the upper plate is adjustable having a plurality of independent pin actuators as also claimed in claim 15. Egelhaaf discloses a device for quenching steel strips [0001]; wherein said device is provided with height-adjustable top and bottom quench parts (7, 11) by means of screw devices which are further depicted to connect (ie. mount) the top quench part to the bottom quench part in order to achieve a desirable height/tolerance and easy adjustment [0002-0003, 0009, fig.3-5]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the system of Harasty by substituting the adjustment means (ie. spacers) of Harasty with the adjustment means of Egelhaaf for the aforementioned benefits. One of ordinary skill would readily recognize that said screw devices are not dependent on each other and therefore meet the limitation of “independent”. Egelhaaf further depicts said screws as pins that move to adjust a position of the top part relative to the bottom part.
Regarding claims 2-7, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). Egelhaaf further expressly depicts that the screw devices are connected through the top quench part (ie. mounted) and adjust the height/tolerance through engagement with the lower quench part, wherein multiple screw devices are present and aligned along an axis parallel to the conveying direction of steel (1) [fig.2-5]. The examiner further notes that the aforementioned limitations merely recite a duplication of actuators, which has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claims 1 and 15 (see previous). The examiner notes that the aforementioned screw devices of Egelhaaf further meet the limitation of a pair of bolts that would naturally restriction movement between the top and bottom quench devices in a direction that is parallel to the conveying direction of the steel strip [fig.2-5].
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claims 8 and 17 (see previous). The examiner notes that both Harasty and Egelhaaf further depict sidewalls of a lower quench block/part, wherein said sidewalls rise above a lower edge of a part of the top quench block/part and would therefore naturally restrain movement in a direction perpendicular to the conveying direction of the steel [fig.9-10 Harasty, fig.2-5 Egelhaaf].
Regarding claims 10-11 and 19-20, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claims 8 and 15 (see previous). Harasty further discloses cooling channels (44, 48, 52, 56, 58) in the top and bottom blocks [fig.5-9].
Regarding claims 12 and 21, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claims 1 and 15 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a rear quenching block as claimed. However, the examiner submits that the rear quenching block is merely directed to a second, duplicate quenching block, which is prima facie obvious because the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). One of ordinary skill would readily understand that the rear quench block merely imparts another, second quenching action and does not result in any new or unexpected features.
Regarding claims 13 and 22, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claims 12 and 21 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach contact between a front and rear quenching block as claimed. However, the examiner submits that the instant claim merely pertains to a desired orientation of quenching blocks, which is prima facie obvious because the particular placement of quenching blocks is an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). One of ordinary skill would readily understand that the quench block orientation can be desirably controlled according to a desired quenching pattern such as a continuous quenching behavior which would naturally result from quenching blocks having no spaces/gaps therein.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claims 1 and 15 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a pin moveable in increments as claimed. However, as stated above, Egelhaaf discloses screw devices, which one of ordinary skill would understand to allow for continuous adjustment. Said continuous adjustment allows for virtually any arbitrary adjustment increment depending on the operator/application, which overlaps with the claimed range. The examiner further notes that the specific recitation of dimensions of the pin movement increments is not patentably distinct because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 23, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 15 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a pin distance as claimed. However, the examiner notes that this limitation merely pertains to a specific size dimension, which is not patentably distinct because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim(s) 12-13 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harasty (US 2,638,337) and Egelhaaf (DE971962, machine translation referred to herein) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Schumacher (US 1,817,902).
Regarding claims 12 and 21, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claims 1 and 15 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach another rear quenching block as claimed. Schumacher discloses a quenching device for steel strips [p.1 ln.1-27]; wherein said device includes multiple upper quench plates (3, 11) that are independently controllable to prevent bending and warpage of the steel strip [p.2 ln.71-95, fig.1-2]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the system of the aforementioned prior art by utilizing multiple quench blocks/plates for the aforementioned benefit disclosed by Schumacher. The examiner notes that the suggested disclosure of the aforementioned combination would result in multiple quench blocks of Harasty, wherein said quench blocks would naturally have a front block and rear block, said blocks being adjustable as already disclosed by the prior art.
Regarding claims 13 and 22, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claims 12 and 21 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach contact between a front and rear quenching block as claimed. However, the examiner submits that the instant claim merely pertains to a desired orientation of quenching blocks, which is prima facie obvious because the particular placement of quenching blocks is an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). One of ordinary skill would readily understand that the quench block orientation can be desirably controlled according to a desired quenching pattern such as a continuous quenching behavior which would naturally result from quenching blocks having no spaces/gaps therein.
Claim(s) 13 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harasty (US 2,638,337) and others as applied to claims 12 and 21 above, and further in view of Yi et al. (CN110722043, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claims 13 and 22, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claims 12 and 21 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach contact between a front and rear quenching block as claimed. Li et al. discloses that it is known to provide a quenching apparatus having a bottom die (4) along with multiple, segmented upper holders (6) to achieve an adjustable force and achieve uniform forming, wherein said segmented upper holders are depicted to be in contact with each other [0027, fig.1-2]. Although Li et al. is directed to press forming rather than mere quenching as taught by the aforementioned prior art of Schumacher, both references are directed to quenching by employing multiple, adjustable plates/holders for achieving uniformity. Accordingly, both references solve the same problem of uniformity during quenching such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the system of the aforementioned prior art by utilizing the holder configuration of Li et al. for the aforementioned benefit of achieving uniformity, wherein said configuration of Li et al. depicts said holders in contact with each other.
Claim(s) 14, 16, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egelhaaf (DE971962, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claims 14 and 16, Egelhaaf discloses the system of claims 1 and 15 (see previous). Egelhaaf does not expressly teach a pin moveable in increments as claimed. However, as stated above, Egelhaaf discloses screw devices, which one of ordinary skill would understand to allow for continuous adjustment. Said continuous adjustment allows for virtually any arbitrary adjustment increment depending on the operator/application, which overlaps with the claimed range. The examiner further notes that the specific recitation of dimensions of the pin movement increments is not patentably distinct because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 23, Egelhaaf discloses the system of claim 15 (see previous). Egelhaaf does not expressly teach a pin distance as claimed. However, the examiner notes that this limitation merely pertains to a specific size dimension, which is not patentably distinct because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim(s) 10-11 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egelhaaf (DE971962, machine translation referred to herein) in view of Harasty (US 2,638,337).
Regarding claims 10-11 and 19-20, Egelhaaf discloses the system of claims 1 and 15 (see previous). Egelhaaf teaches water cooled quenching parts as stated above; however, Egelhaaf does not expressly teach the presence of cooling channels. Harasty discloses a quench block for continuous steel strips [col.1 ln.1-5]; wherein said quench block includes upper and lower blocks having cooling channels therein as a means for supplying water to the quench blocks for quenching [col.3 ln.60-75]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the system of Egelhaaf by utilizing cooling channels to supply quenching water as taught by Harasty.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egelhaaf (DE971962, machine translation referred to herein) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Schumacher (US 1,817,902).
Regarding claims 12 and 21, Egelhaaf discloses the system of claims 1 and 15 (see previous). Egelhaaf does not expressly teach another rear quenching block as claimed. Schumacher discloses a quenching device for steel strips [p.1 ln.1-27]; wherein said device includes multiple upper quench plates (3, 11) that are independently controllable to prevent bending and warpage of the steel strip [p.2 ln.71-95, fig.1-2]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the system of the aforementioned prior art by utilizing multiple quench blocks/plates for the aforementioned benefit disclosed by Schumacher. The examiner notes that the suggested disclosure of the aforementioned combination would result in multiple quench blocks of Egelhaaf, wherein said quench blocks would naturally have a front block and rear block, said blocks being adjustable as already disclosed by the prior art.
Regarding claims 13 and 22, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claims 12 and 21 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach contact between a front and rear quenching block as claimed. However, the examiner submits that the instant claim merely pertains to a desired orientation of quenching blocks, which is prima facie obvious because the particular placement of quenching blocks is an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). One of ordinary skill would readily understand that the quench block orientation can be desirably controlled according to a desired quenching pattern such as a continuous quenching behavior which would naturally result from quenching blocks having no spaces/gaps therein.
Claim(s) 13 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egelhaaf (DE971962, machine translation referred to herein) and others as applied to claims 12 and 21 above, and further in view of Yi et al. (CN110722043, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claims 13 and 22, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claims 12 and 21 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach contact between a front and rear quenching block as claimed. Li et al. discloses that it is known to provide a quenching apparatus having a bottom die (4) along with multiple, segmented upper holders (6) to achieve an adjustable force and achieve uniform forming, wherein said segmented upper holders are depicted to be in contact with each other [0027, fig.1-2]. Although Li et al. is directed to press forming rather than mere quenching as taught by the aforementioned prior art of Schumacher, both references are directed to quenching by employing multiple, adjustable plates/holders for achieving uniformity. Accordingly, both references solve the same problem of uniformity during quenching such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the system of the aforementioned prior art by utilizing the holder configuration of Li et al. for the aforementioned benefit of achieving uniformity, wherein said configuration of Li et al. depicts said holders in contact with each other.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
