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 .
Status of claims
Claims 1-17 were subject to a restriction requirement.
Claims 1, 5, 10, and 17 were amended.
Claims 3 and 4 were cancelled.
Claims 10-17 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-2 and 5-9 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on July 16, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the amended claims 1 and 10 now share a common technical feature not taught by Hashimukai (WO 2020/203261, copy provided in previous action), and thus now have unity of invention. This is not found persuasive because while the amended claims 1 and 10 now share common technical features not taught by Hashimukai, the shared features are not considered special technical features in light of the prior art. To elaborate, considering the amendments, the two groups outlined in the restriction requirement would now be:
Group I, claims 1-9, drawn to a metal-sheet quenching apparatus configured to cool a metal sheet while conveying the metal sheet, as taught in claim 1.
Group II, claims 10- 17, drawn to a metal-sheet quenching method in which a metal sheet is cooled while being conveyed, as taught in claim 10.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a metal sheet quenching apparatus as taught in claim 1, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Nakaoka (US 4052235) in view of Stringam (US 20020066484 A1). An outline of the teachings of Nakaoka in view of Stringam is shown below.
Claims 10-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 July 16, 2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 is a dependent of the now-cancelled claim 4. Therefore, claim 6 fails to further impose any metes and bounds on previous claims. For the purpose of examination, claim 6 is interpreted as being dependent on claim 1.
Claims 7 and 8 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 6.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakaoka (US 4052235).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Nakaoka teaches a method and apparatus for water quenching a steel strip (Abstract, Fig. 4). Nakaoka’s apparatus comprises:
A cooling tank configured to store cooling fluid and to cool the metal sheet when the metal sheet is immersed in the cooling fluid (Fig. 4 # 2)
A restraining roll that is installed inside the cooling tank and that is configured to convey the metal sheet cooled in the cooling tank while restraining the metal sheet in a thickness direction (Fig. 4 # 10)
A water-level adjustor configured to adjust a height of a fluid surface of the cooling fluid inside the cooling tank, the fluid surface being a cooling start position of the metal sheet. In Fig.4, the cooling water supply pipe 5, duct 6, water storage tank 7, adjustable weir 7’, and partition plate 7’’ in total comprise a water-level adjustor (Col. 5 ln. 3-19; Fig, 4 # 5, 6, 7, 7’,7’’). To elaborate, Nakaoka’s apparatus also comprises:
An adjustment tank that is configured to store the cooling fluid and that is connected to the cooling tank (Fig. 4 #7)
A supply source configured to supply the cooling fluid to the adjustment tank (Fig. 4 #5 and 6)
A weir configured to be movable up and down and to control discharge of the cooling fluid from the adjustment tank (Fig. 4 #7’ and 7’’)
A plurality of nozzles configured to jet the cooling fluid to the metal sheet to cool the metal sheet, the plurality of nozzles being installed inside the cooling tank (Fig. 4 #3)
Since Nakaoka’s weir is adjustable, it would be known that their apparatus also includes a position control device configured to control the height of the fluid surface of the cooling fluid inside the cooling tank by controlling an operation of the water-level adjustor (e.g. a handle, lever, button, etc.).
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 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaoka (US 4052235) in view of Stringam (US 20020066484 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Nakaoka teaches a method and apparatus for water quenching a steel strip (Abstract, Fig. 4). Nakaoka’s apparatus comprises:
A cooling tank configured to store cooling fluid and to cool the metal sheet when the metal sheet is immersed in the cooling fluid (Fig. 4 # 2)
A restraining roll that is installed inside the cooling tank and that is configured to convey the metal sheet cooled in the cooling tank while restraining the metal sheet in a thickness direction (Fig. 4 # 10)
A water-level adjustor configured to adjust a height of a fluid surface of the cooling fluid inside the cooling tank, the fluid surface being a cooling start position of the metal sheet. In Fig.4, the cooling water supply pipe 5, duct 6, water storage tank 7, adjustable weir 7’, and partition plate 7’’ in total comprise a water-level adjustor (Col. 5 ln. 3-19; Fig, 4 # 5, 6, 7, 7’,7’’). To elaborate, Nakaoka’s apparatus also comprises:
An adjustment tank that is configured to store the cooling fluid and that is connected to the cooling tank (Fig. 4 #7)
A supply source configured to supply the cooling fluid to the adjustment tank (Fig. 4 #5 and 6)
A weir configured to be movable up and down and to control discharge of the cooling fluid from the adjustment tank (Fig. 4 #7’ and 7’’)
A plurality of nozzles configured to jet the cooling fluid to the metal sheet to cool the metal sheet, the plurality of nozzles being installed inside the cooling tank (Fig. 4 #3)
While Nakaoka teaches that their taught weir is adjustable, they do not exemplify a control device that adjusts the water level by adjusting the weir position.
Stringam teaches an automated system for controlling water flow through a turnout gate (Abstract). Their system comprises an adjustable weir that is coupled to a turnout system and a sensor ([0019], Fig. 2 #10, 12, 20). The turnout system further comprises a CPU that adjusts the weir position based on readings from the sensor [0019]. Overall, Stringam teaches that their system provides a low-cost and practical way to automatically control water flow under varying water level conditions (Abstract).
Nakaoka and Stringam are analogous art because they are both directed to controlling the water flow from one region to another, which is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate Stringam’s water level control system into Nakaoka’s taught adjustable weir because doing so would enable an advantageous result of an efficient automated weir that adjusts its position based on varying water levels.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaoka (US 4052235) in view of Stringam (US 20020066484 A1), as applied in claim 1 above, and in further view of Yoshimoto (US 2017/0327926 A1, henceforth referred to as ‘926).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, neither Nakaoka nor Stringam teach a target temperature range of (TMs+150) – (TMf-150) (OC).
‘926 teaches an apparatus for rapidly quenching a steel sheet (Abstract, Fig. 1). Like Nakaoka, 926’s apparatus comprises the following:
A cooling tank configured to store cooling fluid and to cool the metal sheet when the metal sheet is immersed in the cooling fluid (Fig. 1 # 1,2)
A restraining roll that is installed inside the cooling tank and that is configured to convey the metal sheet cooled in the cooling tank while restraining the metal sheet in a thickness direction (Fig. 1 # 7)
A plurality of nozzles configured to jet the cooling fluid to the metal sheet to cool the metal sheet, the plurality of nozzles being installed inside the cooling tank (Fig. 1 # 4)
Additionally, ‘926 teaches that their steel sheet and restraining rolls are kept at a temperature of (TMs+150) – (TMf-150) (OC), where TMs is the martensitic transformation start temperature and the TMf is the martensitic transformation finish temperature (Abstract, [0012]). ‘926 teaches that by maintaining the sheet and rolls at this temperature, cambering of the processed steel sheets is reduced [0027,0028].
Also, ‘926 configures the distance between the water surface and the restraining rolls based on the line speed of the steel sheet, the cooling start temperature of the metal sheet, the target temperature, and the cooling rate of the metal sheet ([0028], [0031], [Math.2]). ‘926 configures this distance to minimize camber of the processed steel sheet ([0028], [0042-43], Fig. 4).
Nakaoka and ‘926 are analogous arts in the same field of endeavor of metal-sheet quenching. Additionally, Nakaoka and Stringam are analogous art because they are directed to controlling water flow from one region to another, which is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the steel sheet temperature and surface-to-roll distance limitations of ‘926 into the combined apparatus of Nakaoka and Stringam because doing so enables the advantageous result of reduced cambering in the steel sheets produced by the combined apparatus.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaoka (US 4052235) in view of Stringam (US 20020066484 A1), as applied in claim 1 above, and in further view of Yoshimoto (JP 2019090106 A, henceforth referred to as JP ‘106).
Regarding claims 5-8, Nakaoka and Stringam teach neither a target temperature range of (TMs+150) – (TMf-150) (OC), nor the adjustment of a distance between the water surface and the restraining rolls.
JP ‘106 teaches an apparatus for rapidly quenching a steel sheet (Abstract, Fig. 1). Like Nakaoka, JP ‘106’s apparatus comprises the following:
A cooling tank configured to store cooling fluid and to cool the metal sheet when the metal sheet is immersed in the cooling fluid (Fig. 1 #6)
A restraining roll that is installed inside the cooling tank and that is configured to convey the metal sheet cooled in the cooling tank while restraining the metal sheet in a thickness direction (Fig. 1 #5)
A plurality of nozzles configured to jet the cooling fluid to the metal sheet to cool the metal sheet, the plurality of nozzles being installed inside the cooling tank (Fig. 1 #2)
Additionally, JP ‘106 teaches that their steel sheet and restraining rolls are kept at a temperature of (TMs+150) – (TMf-150) (OC), where TMs is the martensitic transformation start temperature and the TMf is the martensitic transformation finish temperature (Clm. 2). JP ‘106 teaches that by maintaining the sheet and rolls at this temperature, warpage of the processed steel sheets is reduced (pg. 3 of machine translation).
Also, JP ‘106 configures the distance between the water surface and the restraining rolls based on the line speed of the sheet, the cooling start temperature of the metal sheet, the target temperature, and the cooling rate of the metal sheet (Clms). 4 & 7). Particularly, JP ‘106 configures the distance (d) based on the following formulas (pg. 3-4 of machine translation):
d
=
v
*
T
1
-
T
2
C
V
C
V
=
α
t
Where v is the sheet line speed, T1 is the quenching start temperature, T2 is the target temperature, CV is the cooling rate of the sheet, t is the steel thickness, and α is a determined coefficient. These equations are the same equations taught in the applicant’s claims 7 and 8. By configuring the surface-to-roll distance based on the above equations, JP ‘106 suppresses variation in the shape of the processed sheets (pg. 4-5 of machine translation).
Nakaoka and JP ‘106 are analogous arts in the same field of endeavor of metal-sheet quenching. Additionally, Nakaoka and Stringam are analogous art because they are directed to controlling water flow from one region to another, which is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the steel sheet temperature and surface-to-roll distance limitations of JP ‘106 into the combined apparatus of Nakaoka and Stringam because doing so enables the advantageous result of minimized warping and shape variation in the steel sheets processed by the combined apparatus.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaoka (US 4052235) in view of Stringam (US 20020066484 A1), as applied in claim 2 above, and in further view of Kitagawa (EP 0614992 A1)
Regarding claim 9, neither Nakaoka nor Stringam teach adjusting the distance between the fluid surface and a hitting position of a nozzle.
Kitagawa teaches a metal band apparatus comprising cooling fluid nozzles (Abstract; pg. 4 ln. 37-45). Particularly, Kitagawa teaches that the nozzles are mounted to a movable bed, allowing for upward and downward positioning and movement along the width of the metal band being quenched (pg. 23, ln. 6-19). Overall, adjusting the distance and positions of the nozzles along the metal band reduces unwanted temperature deviations along the band (pg. 17, ln. 24-29).
Nakaoka and Kitagawa are analogous arts in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Nakaoka and Stringam are analogous art because they are directed to controlling water flow from one region to another, which is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the adjustable nozzles of Kitagawa into the combined apparatus of Nakaoka and Stringam because doing so enables the advantageous result of minimized temperature deviations along the length of the processed metal sheet. From here, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the positions of the nozzles relative to both the fluid surface level and the steel sheet to further reduce temperature deviations. Claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result, which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art. (MPEP 2144.05)
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-9130. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at 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 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.
/J.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/DANIELLE M. CARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
9/15/2026
Prosecution Insights