DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species E in the reply filed on December 24, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species are linked by a single inventive concept, however the shared technical feature is a metal band as an inlay for sealing strips formed of a micro-alloyed or multiphase steel. However, even where the species are linked by a shared technical feature, the shared technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art (Wagner as modified by Lohback as discussed below). Claims 1-2, 4-7, 13, 15, 17, and 19 are withdrawn as directed to non-elected species. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 3, 8-12, 14, 16, 18, and 20-21 are 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.
Claims 3 and 8 set forth a list of materials where the material consists of micro-alloyed or multi-phase steel, “namely at least one of the following”. It is not clear if “namely” strictly limits the scope of the claim to the listed materials or sets forth a list of examples. The term “namely” is generally considered to set forth specific examples but is not exclusive i.e. the items in the list meet the criteria and are preferentially mentioned but other functionally equivalent items are within the bounds of the list. It is unclear what standards determine if a steel may included or excluded as part of an open list. For purposes of examination, in-light of applicants’ election of species E, the metal band will be considered to be limited to the elected alloys regardless of the open or closed nature of applicants’ list of materials. Correction is required.
Claims 9-12, 14, 16, 18, and 20-21 are rejected as depending form claims 3 or 8 above.
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 3, 8-12, 14, 16, 18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US Patent 7,517,590) in view of Lohbeck (US Patent 6,454,493) and ASTM Standard Specification (Wayback Machine, ASTM Standard Specification for Steel, Sheet, Cold-Rolled, Carbon, Structural, High-Strength Low-Alloy and High-Strength Low-Alloy with Improved Formability" Captured July 3, 2017 (7 Pages)).
Regarding applicants’ claims 3 and 8, Wagner discloses a metal band as an inlay for trim and sealing strips (col. 4 lines 11-17), but does not appear to limit the metal to micro-alloyed or multiphase steel, specifically ASTM A1008 HSLA-S Grade 50 or 60.
Wagner disclose that the metal bands have specific tensile strength requirements (col. 1 lines 57-60), have slots made by cutting and stretch rolling (col. 4 lines 25-28), and may be bent into a U-shape (figure 3 and col. 5 lines 14-18). Lohbeck describes a method of forming an expanded steel tube where a flattened unexpanded steel tube is expanded and shaped (col. 2 lines 29-55), where the formable steel is preferably a high strength steel grade with formability, having a yield strength to tensile strength ratio which is lower than 0.8 and a yield strength greater than 275MPa, where suitable steels are dual phase high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels having a strain hardening exponent of at least 0.6 (col. 3 lines 33-41). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention to select an HSLA steel as suggested by Lohbeck as the metal for the metal band of Wagner, where the HSLA steel is shown to be suitable in the formation of formed expanded metal members.
Neither Wagner nor Lohbeck appear to list a specific steel alloy or alloy specification however it would be within the ordinary level of skill to select a specific HSLA steel from known and available HSLA steel alloys which satisfy the parameters disclosed by Lohbeck (there would motivation to select, and a reasonable expectation of success, in selecting alloys having demonstrated use in forming expanded metal articles). ASTM Standard Specification lists HSLA steels that include HSLAS Grade 45 Class 1, Grade 50 Class 1, Grade 55 Class 1, and Grade 60 Class 1, each of which include a yield-strength to tensile strength ratio and yield strength as guided by Lohbeck. These steel specifications also include a bending radius of 1.5t to 2.5t which is pertinent to bending the metal ban of Wagner into a U shape. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to select from known HSLA steels meeting known specifications as guided by Luhbeck, and which possess good formability and strength for forming articles of expanded metal, including the selection of ASTM A1008 HSLAS GRADE 50 AND 60.
Regarding applicants’ claim 9, Wagner disclose that the metal bands are jacketed by rubber in forming a sealing strip (col. 1 lines 30-32), which results in a sealing strip that is provided with an envelope comprised of sealing material.
Regarding applicants’ claim 10, the metal band may be bent into a U shape (figure 3 and col. 5 lines 14-18).
Regarding applicants’ claim 11, Wagner disclose the sealing strips used for sealing openings in the automotive sector (col. 1 lines 27-30).
Regarding applicants’ claim 12, the strip is provided with edge slots made by cutting (figures 1-3 #3).
Regarding applicants’ claim 14, the steel specifications from ASTM Standard Specifications disclose cold rolled steels (ASTM Standard Specification - Table 2).
Regarding applicants’ claim 16, Wagner does not appear to explicitly limit the thickness of the metal band, however it is within the ordinary skill in the art to discover a workable thickness for the metal band. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to find a workable range of thickness values which balance material cost and weight with strength and formability. There is a reasonable expectation that the range of thickness values will at least overlap applicants’ claimed range where the HSLAS steels have high strength and narrow bending radius while providing good strength to weight ratio to provide the clamping force necessary for sealing applications. Absent a showing that the claimed thickness range is critical, the claimed range is not considered to distinguish over the range of values determined by one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of general engineering design.
Regarding applicants’ claim 18, when sealing material is extruded as a jacket surrounding the metal band, the metal band is coated with the sealing material (figure 3 and col. 5 lines 14-18).
Regarding applicants’ claim 20, the strip of Wagner is provided with edge slots made by cutting and roll stretching (col. 4 lines 25-27).
Regarding applicants’ claim 21, Wagner disclose the sealing strips to be for sealing openings in the automotive sector (col. 1 lines 27-30).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM C KRUPICKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/Adam Krupicka/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784