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 1-6) in the reply filed on 08/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Claim 1 recites a pressing processor that is configured to set, based on a shape of the metal sheet before quenching, a pressing quantity of each shape correction roll of the plurality of shape correction rolls. Non-elected claims 7-9 from Group II recite similar common features and non-elected claims 10-12 from Group III recite similar common features based on their dependence from claim 7; and these features are not disclosed by Watanabe
This is not found persuasive because as indicated in the restriction requirement Watanabe teaches as known in the art at the time the invention was made, a quenching apparatus configured to cool a metal steel sheet (3) coming out from the heating furnace and correcting any distortion in the metal sheet using flattening machine (7) before quenching in cooling unit (2). The flattening machine (7) comprises a plurality of shape correction rolls provided at a front surface and a back surface of the metal sheet and press in a thickness direction of the metal sheet before the metal sheet being quenched by cooler (2). Hence, the claimed inventions are said to lack unity “a posteriori,” because the special technical feature as required by instant claimed invention is anticipated by or obvious over cited prior art Watanabe. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. The non-elected claims 7-12 are withdrawn from prosecution in the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in the specification page 1, para [0002], line 3, it is suggested to replace “while continuously passing a metal sheet makes materials,” with ‘’ while continuously passing a metal sheet material,”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, lines 3-5, it is suggested to replace “the front shape correction roll and the back shape correction roll are configured to be disposed such that a central axis-to-central axis distance thereof is 100 mm or more and 1000 mm or less” with -- the front shape correction roll and the back shape correction roll are disposed such that a central axis-to-central axis distance therebetween is 100 mm or more and 1000 mm or less--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a pressing control processor that is configured to
set, based on a shape of the metal sheet before quenching, a pressing quantity of each shape correction roll of the plurality of shape correction rolls" in 9-11. In particular, it unclear as to what the phrase “based on a shape of the metal sheet” means, in that there is no means or device for shape determination or measurement recited in the preceding lines of the claim to allow the setting of pressing quantity of each shape correction roll upon the metal sheet by the processor to be based on; thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite since the metes and bounds of the claim are unascertainable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
7. 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.
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.
8. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in
the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Noe et al. (US 2002/0174699).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Noe et al. teaches a metal strip (2, see figure 1 and para [0028]) processing line that comprises a metal strip processing device (4, see figure 1 and para [0028], [0034]). Noe et al. also teaches in the background of the disclosure that the metal strip processing device (4) may be any one of an annealing unit and a cooling or quenching unit, where crossbow or shape distortion in the metal strip occurs that would require correction to be made (see para [0002], [005]-[0006]), and there the disclosure of Noe et al., considered in entirety encompassing the scope of metal strip or sheet shape distortion and correction associated with both annealing units and a quenching units.
Noe et al. in figure 1 shows a metal strip (2, see figure 1 and para [0028]) processing line comprising: a metal strip processing device (4) which may be a cooling or a quenching device (see figure 1, para [0002] and para [0029]), a shape or a crossbow in the metal strip measurement device (i.e., sensor 3, see figure 1 and para [0031]) for measuring the shape of the metal sheet before being quenched in the quenching device (4, see figure 1) with a cooling fluid; a plurality of shape correction rolls that includes at least a front shape correction roll (i.e. adjustment correction roll 5, see figure 1 and para [0029]) and a back shape correction roll (i.e. the further that adjustment correction roll 8, see figure 1 and para [0032]) are configured to be respectively provided at a front surface and a back surface of the metal sheet and press, in a thickness direction of the metal sheet, the metal sheet before being quenched in the quenching device (4); and a pressing control processor (i.e., the comparator or controller 7, communicatively link to a computer or a programmable processor (see para [0031]-[0034] and figure 1) that is configured to set, based on a shape of the metal sheet measured by the sensor or measuring unit (3, see figure 1 and para [0031]) before quenching, a pressing quantity of each shape correction roll of the plurality of shape correction rolls (i.e. adjustment correction rolls 5 and 8, see figure 1 and para [0029], [0032]).
Regarding claim 2, Noe et al. teaches and metal strip processing apparatus
in which the pressing processor (i.e., the comparator or controller 7, communicatively
linked to a computer or a programmable processor (see para [0031]-[0034] and figure 1) is configured to cause the front shape correction roll (5) to perform pressing when the metal sheet before quenching has a warp curving (i.e. crossbow, see para [0031]) to a front surface side, and is configured to cause the back shape correction roll (8) to perform pressing when the metal sheet before quenching has a warp curving to a back surface side (see figure 2 and para [0029]- [0034]).
Regarding claim 4, Noe et al. teaches a metal strip processing apparatus in which the shape measurement device (i.e., sensor 3, see figure 1 and para [0031]) is configured to measure a warpage quantity (i.e. crossbow, see para [0031], [0032] and figures 2-6) of the metal sheet (2, see figure 1 and para [0028], [0034]), and the pressing processor (7) is configured to set a measured warpage quantity (i.e. crossbow, see para [0031], [0032]) of the metal sheet (2) as the pressing quantity and control the plurality of shape correction rolls (5 and 8, see para [0029], [0032]) to perform pressing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noe et al. (US 2002/0174699). As applied to claims 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Noe et al. in figure 1 shows a metal strip processing
apparatus in which the front shape correction roll (5) and the back shape correction roll (8) are disposed such that their respective central axis-to-central axis defines a predetermined distance therebetween and a start position of cooling performed by the cooling device (4) defines a predetermined distance between and each of the plurality of shape correction rolls (5 &8) but fails to teach said central axis-to-central axis to be 100 mm or more and 1000 mm or less and said distance between a start position of cooling performed by the cooling device and each of the plurality of shape correction rolls is within 500 mm as claimed.
Noe et al., therefore in this instant case differs from the instant claim only in terms of the dimension or magnitude of the central axis-to-central axis distance between the front shape correction roll (5) and the back shape correction roll (8); and the distance between a start position of cooling performed by the cooling device and each of the shape correction rolls (5 &8), however, with reference to MPEP 2144.04.IV.A. which pertains to the obviousness of changes in size/proportion, similar to the instantly-claimed central axis-to-central axis separation distance between the front and the back rolls; and the distance between each of said front and back rolls and that taught by Noe et al., the Court held that 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.
Regarding claim 6, Noe et al. discloses a metal strip (2, see figure 1 and para [0028]) processing line that comprises a metal strip processing devices downstream of a rolling station, wherein the processing devices may comprises at least one of the following devices: an annealing unit and a cooling unit, and combinations thereof (see para [0002], [0005]-[0006]). Noe et al. also discloses that in the metal processing line the rolled metal strip after the annealing unit is followed by quenching or cooling unit (see para [0006]). Noe et al., though does not particularly teach a soaking zone at the tail end of the annealing unit before the quenching unit, however an annealing unit with a soaking zone at the tail end is well known in the art to ensure microstructure homogeneity of the metal workpiece before cooling or quenching; and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have reasonably expected the annealing unit of Noe et al. also to include a soaking zone at the tail end before the cooling or quenching unit and the same way as claimed.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. Yoshimoto et al. (US 10,844,449), Bouby et al. (US 11,235,365)
and Pak Suk Dal (KR101235751) are also cited in PTO-892.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ABOAGYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8165. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-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 Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
/M.A/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights