Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Restriction/Election
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1 and 2 – 8 in the reply filed on 04/29/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Yoshimoto (US2017/0327926) does not teach the shared technical feature of Group I and Group II (as amended). This is not found persuasive because claim 9 does not depend on claim 1 nor does it expressly require the lifting/lowering device or the slider. As such, the additional shared technical feature of nozzles being moved to an opposite side of the restraining rolls is implied by Yoshimoto (US2017/0327926, herein referred to as US ‘926 for clarity) because the movement of the pinch/restraining rolls upward or downwards in the conveyance direction would result in some of the nozzles being moved to an opposite side to the roll.
As stated above, claim 9 does not require the particular configuration of devices to slide and/or lift/lower the nozzles and claim limitations are not imported from the specification.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9 – 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/29/26.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1 and 3 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimoto (WO2017115742, using espacenet translation) in view of Yoshimoto (US2017/0327926, henceforth referred to as US ‘926 for clarity) and Kitagawa (EP0614992, using espacenet translation)
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Yoshimoto teaches a rapid cooling quenching apparatus for cooling metal sheets [Title, Abstract]. Yoshimoto discloses that the quenching apparatus includes a water tank which the metal sheet passes through [Fig 1, “1”], meeting claim 3.
Yoshimoto teaches that the quenching apparatus includes:
A plurality of water nozzles [Fig 2, “24”], meeting the claimed limitation of a plurality of nozzles for ejecting cooling fluid. Wherein the nozzles can be overlapping with restraining rolls in conveyance direction [Fig 4].
Restraining rolls which apply force to the sheet in the thickness direction [Fig 3, “7”; Page 8 of translation], meeting the claimed limitation of restraining rolls to convey and restrain the metal sheet.
Yoshimoto teaches that the quenching apparatus has the ability to control the restraining rolls in order to adjust the pressure applied to the metal sheet [Page 15 of translation, 2nd paragraph]. Wherein this applies a device for controlling and moving the restraining rolls, meeting the claimed limitations.
Yoshimoto does not expressly teach that the restraining rolls have the ability to move in conveyance direction. Yoshimoto does not teach that nozzles can be raised or lowered (conveyance direction) or slid in and out (transverse to the conveyance direction).
US ‘926 teaches a rapid cooling apparatus involving a cooling bath and cooling nozzles [Title, Fig 1]. US ‘926 discloses that the restraining rolls can be adjusted in a conveyance direction such that the straightening force is applied in a target temperature range that minimizes camber and shape defects [0002, 0028]. US ‘926 teaches that the restraining rolls can adjusted in a conveyance direction based on the line speed [0015], the cooling/quenching start temperature [0017], cooling rate [0031], and thickness [0031], meeting the claimed limitation of a moving/control for moving the restraining rolls in a conveyance direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the apparatus of Yoshimoto such that the restraining/pinch rollers could be adjusted in the conveyance direction so that contact occurred within a target temperature range. Yoshimoto teaches a similar quenching apparatus for metal sheets and acknowledges that the constraining/pinch rollers can be adjusted to affect the metal sheet. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the teachings of US ‘926. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the apparatus in order to achieve the benefit of reducing camber and shape defects of the sheet during quenching.
Yoshimoto as-modified does not teach that nozzles can be raised or lowered (conveyance direction) or slid in and out (transverse to the conveyance direction).
Kitagawa teaches a metal band quenching apparatus for an annealing furnace containing cooling fluid nozzles [abstract, page 4, line 37 – 45]. Kitagawa teaches that the rolls are moveable/adjustable in the process and as such, the nozzles headers are made moveable so that they can maintain an optimal distance from the sheet being cooled or quenched [page 4, line 55 – 59], meeting the claimed limitation of a slider configured for the nozzles to approach and separate from the metal sheet. Kitagawa further teaches that the plurality of nozzles can be mounted on a moving bed which allows for movement downward/upward, in the width direction, and in the direction of metal strip movement [page 23, line 6 – 21; Fig 17]. Lastly, as shown in Fig 17 and the nozzles are moved via their pipes which carry cooling fluid [page 25, 3rd paragraph]. Kitagawa teaches that adjusting the distance and locations of nozzles allows for reducing temperature deviation during cooling [page 17, line 24 – 29].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the apparatus of Yoshimoto to incorporate a nozzle device that can be adjusted in the conveyance direction as well as transversal and width directions, as described Kitagawa. Kitagwa describes a cooling/quenching apparatus for sheets after heat treatment including the use of rolls and quenching fluid nozzles and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the teachings of Kitagawa to Yoshimoto. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the apparatus because it would allow the nozzles to adjust based on the positioning of the restraining rolls. Moreover, Kitagawa teaches that adjusting the distance and locations of nozzles allows for reducing temperature deviation of the strip/sheet during cooling [page 17, line 24 – 29].
Regarding claims 4 – 5, Yoshimoto in view of US ‘926 and Kitagawa teaches the invention as applied in claim 4. US ‘926 teaches that the restraining rolls are positionally adjusted to be in a target temperature range that minimizes the camber/warpage of the steel sheet [0028], meeting claim 4. The target temperature range is defined by (TＭｓ+150) (°C) and (TＭｆ-150) (°C) [0028], meeting claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Yoshimoto in view of US ‘926 and Kitagawa and teaches the invention as applied in claim 4. US ‘926 teaches that the restraining rolls can adjusted in a conveyance direction so that their position is within a target temperature range and this position (i.e., distance cooling/quenching start) takes into account the line speed [0015], meeting the claimed limitation, the cooling/quenching start temperature [0017], meeting the claimed limitation, target temperature [0028], and cooling rate [0031], meeting the claimed limitation.
Claims 7 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimoto (WO2017/115742, using espacenet translation) in view of US ‘926 (US2017/0327926) and Kitagawa (EP0614992, using espacenet translation), as applied to claim 6, in further view of Yoshimoto (JP2019090106, using espacenet translation, henceforth referred to JP ‘106 for clarity).
Regarding claims 7 – 8, Yoshimoto in view of US ‘926 and Kitagawa teaches the invention as applied in claim 6. Yoshimoto as-modified teaches that the restraining rolls can be adjusted in a conveyance direction so that their position is within a target temperature range and this position (i.e., distance cooling/quenching start) considers the line speed [0015, US ‘926], the cooling/quenching start temperature [0017, US ‘926], and cooling rate [0031, US ‘926]. Yoshimoto does not expressly teach the claimed formula of claims 7 and 8.
JP ‘106 teaches a rapid cooling apparatus involving a cooling bath and cooling nozzles [Title, Fig 1]. JP ‘106 teaches that the target temperature for the restraining roll(s) are controlled in the same manner as Yoshimoto as-modified (specifically US ‘926) [0016]. Moreover, JP ‘106 states that the distance between the cooling start position and restraining roll should be characterized by formula of d=(T１−T２)*v/CV [0020], meeting claim 7 and that the formula can be further defined as d=(T１−T２)*vt/α [0022], meeting claim 8. JP ‘106 acknowledges that this formula is used in order to properly place the restraining roll in a position wherein the target temperature range can be achieved in the line cooling [0034].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the apparatus of Yoshimoto as-modified and applied the formulas/teachings of JP ‘106 with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results. Yoshimoto as-modified and JP ‘106 both teach similar quenching apparatuses for metal sheets and JP ‘106 expressly teaches that the formulas disclosed are used for positioning the restraining rolls within the same target temperature range as Yoshimoto as-modified. Therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to include the formulas in the position adjustment and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 7,556,701 – Cooling apparatus for steel strip with nozzles moveable nozzle
US 4,371,149 – Cooling apparatus with up and down motion and nozzles mounted on movable frame
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN POLLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8 - 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, Sally Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. 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.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights