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 09/01/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner’s assertion that the shared special technical feature recited in claim 1 of group I and claim 7 of group II is either anticipated by or obvious over Shimada (JPH0987752) was not explained with evidence in the restriction requirement. This is not found persuasive because Shimada in figure 1 clearly shows at least a coolant flow control devices that comprises a regulator valve (5) and regulator valve controller (8) configured for setting the coolant flow rate to the back surface side, and for setting the coolant flow rate to the front surface side of the steel strip as desired to control a detected warping whether being on the back surface side or the front surface side of the steel strip. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 3-4, it is suggested to replace “a cooling device that includes a plurality of jet nozzles that is configured to spray a cooling fluid” with -- a cooling device that includes a plurality of jet nozzles that are configured to spray a cooling fluid--.
Claim 1 in lines 4-5, recites the limitation “a front surface and a back surface of the metal sheet”; in lines 7-8, recites the limitation “the front surface and the back surface”; and recites in lines 11-16, “the back surface side”, “the front surface side”. For claim language consistency, it is suggested to maintained either “front surface” and “back surface” or “front surface side” and “back surface side” throughout the claim. Similar selection should be made in claims 3 and 4.
In claim 1, lines 10-12, it is suggested to replace “is configured to set the flow rate relative to a back surface side of the metal sheet to be larger than the flow rate relative to a front surface side of the metal sheet” with -- is configured to set the flow rate of the cooling fluid to a back surface side of the metal sheet to be greater than the flow rate of the cooling fluid to a front surface side of the metal sheet--.
In claim 1, lines 13-15, it is suggested to replace “is configured to set the flow rate relative to the front surface side of the metal sheet to be larger than the flow rate relative to the back surface side of the metal sheet” with -- is configured to set the flow rate of the cooling fluid to the front surface side of the metal sheet to be greater than the flow rate of the colling fluid to the back surface side of the metal sheet--.
In claim 1, line 6, it is suggested to replace “a flow rate adjustment processor that
that is configured to set a flow” with -- a flow rate adjustment processor that is
configured to set a flow--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimada (JPH0987752, also see The Espacenet English Machine Translation Version “EEMTV”).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Shimada teaches a quenching apparatus (i.e., cooling system, see the English abstract, figures 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, and EEMTV: para [0006]-[0008]) that is configured to cool a metal sheet (2, see the English abstract, figures 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, and EEMTV: para [0006]-[0008]), the quenching apparatus comprising: a cooling device (see figures 1a, 1b, 2a,) that includes a plurality of jet nozzles (i.e., each of the header pairs (4) are fitted with cooling fluid spraying nozzle , see EEMTV: para [0007]-[0008] and figures 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b), that is configured to spray a cooling fluid onto a front surface and a back surface of the metal sheet (see EEMTV: para [0007]-[0008] and figures 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b); and a flow rate adjustment processor (i.e., the control valve control device 8, see figure 1a and EEMTV: para [0008]) that is configured to set a flow rate of the cooling fluid that is sprayed from the plurality of jet nozzles onto the front surface and the back surface of the metal sheet based on a shape of the metal sheet before quenching (see figures 1a, 1b and EEMTV: para [0006]-[0009]), wherein the flow rate adjustment processor (8) is configured to adjust the degree of opening of the control valve (5) based on the canoeing shape or warpage detected by the detection device (6) configured to measure the shape of the metal sheet before being quenched or disposed near the entrance of quenching zone (see EEMTV: para[0006], [0009]) and to set the flow rate to a back surface side when said canoeing shape or warpage is detected in said back surface side of the metal sheet to be greater than the flow rate to a front surface side of the metal sheet and vice versa when the said canoeing shape or warpage is detected in the front surface side of the metal sheet, and thereby suppressing said detected canoeing shape or warpage of the metal sheet (see the English abstract, figures 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 4a, 4b,4c,4d and EEMTV: para [0006]-[0010]).
Regarding claim 3, Shimada teaches a quenching apparatus (i.e., cooling system, see the English abstract, figures 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, and EEMTV: para [0006]-[0008]) in which the shape measurement device (6, see figures 1a, 1b and EEMTV: para [0006]-[0008]) is configured to measure a warpage quantity of the metal sheet, and the flow rate adjustment processor (8 see figures 1a and EEMTV: para [0006]-[0008]) is configured to set a flow rate difference between the flow rate of the cooling fluid that is sprayed onto the front surface of the metal sheet (2) and the flow rate of the cooling fluid that is sprayed onto the back surface of the metal sheet that increases with an increase in the warpage quantity of the metal sheet (see the English abstract and EEMTV: para [0006]-[0010]).
Regarding claim 6, Shimada discloses a continuous annealing facility (see the English abstract, EEMTV: para [0001] with a soaking zone (see EEMTV: para [0002] suggested as being part of the continuous annealing facility and a quenching zone downstream of the soaking zone of the annealing facility (see figures 1a, 1b and 3; and EEMTV: para [0001], [0002] , [0004]).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada (JPH0987752, also see The Espacenet English Machine Translation Version “EEMTV”) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Shimada teaches a quenching apparatus that comprises canoeing shape or warpage detection device (6) disposed near the entrance of quenching zone (see EEMTV: para[0006], [0009]) flow rate adjustment processor (8) configured to receive a signal from the detection device (6) and using said signal to adjust the degree of opening of the control valve (5) and as such the flow rate of the cooling fluid to the front surface side and the back surface side of the steel strip (2) based on the canoeing shape or warpage detected by the detection device (6); wherein the flow rate to a back surface side when said canoeing shape or warpage is detected in said back surface side of the metal sheet is set to be greater than the flow rate to a front surface side of the metal sheet and vice versa when the said canoeing shape or warpage is detected in the front surface side of the metal sheet, and thereby suppressing warping or formation of canoeing shape in the metal sheet (see the English abstract, figures 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 4a, 4b,4c,4d and EEMTV: para [0006]-[0010]).
Shimada fails to particularly teach a flow rate difference or the specific claimed flow rate difference of 20×d+200 (m.sup.3/hr) between the flow rate of the cooling fluid sprayed onto the front surface side of the metal sheet and the flow rate of the cooling fluid sprayed onto the back surface side of the metal sheet when the canoeing shape or warpage is detected. However, said flow rate difference would reasonable be dictated by the physical attributes of the steel sheet or strip such as thickness or width dimension, hence selection of a suitable flow rate difference to be applied between the front surface side and the back surface side of said steel sheet or strip for the purposes of controlling or suppressing warpage in the metal sheet would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time the invention was made through routine optimization. Also see MPEP 2144.05.II.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada (JPH0987752, also see The Espacenet English Machine Translation Version “EEMTV”) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Akashi et al. (CN1336853, also see the English machine translation version).
Regarding claim 5, Shimada teaches a quenching apparatus that comprises a shape measurement device (6, see Shimada, figures 1a and 1b ) disposed at a predetermined distance near the entrance of quenching zone (see Shimada, figures 1a and 1b and EEMTV: para[0006], [0009]) such that the metal sheet or strip (2, see Shimada, figures 1a and 1b ) makes contact with said shape measurement device (6) before reaching a start position to be cooled by the cooling device (i.e., header 4 fitted with cooling fluid spray nozzle (see Shimada figures 1a and 1b and EEMTV: para[0007]-[0008]).
With respect to the claimed distance of 0.5 m or more and 2.0 m or less between the shape measurement device and a start position of cooling performed by the cooling device, Shimada, in figures 1a and 1b, shows the shape measurement device as being disposed at a distance upstream of the cooling device but silent as to the exact magnitude of said distance of separation. Shimada, in this instant case differs from the instant claim only in terms of the dimension or magnitude of the separation distance between the shape measurement device and the inlet of the cooling device, however, with reference to MPEP 2144.04.IV.A. which pertains to the obviousness of changes in size/proportion, similar to the instantly-claims separation distance between the shape measurement device and the inlet of the cooling device and that shown by Shimada, 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.
In addition, Shimada teaches a shape measurement device (6) but fails to specify or define with specificity that said shape measurement device is in the form of a shape measuring roll as claimed.
Akashi et al. discloses that shape measuring roll is known in that for measuring a deviation or a shape distortion in the flatness of a rolled metal sheet or plate after exiting a rolling machine or a cooling zone (see Akashi et al., see the English translation version, abstract and the Background -Art section) to allow the metal sheet or plate flatness to be controlled and thereby preventing wave formation in the steel plate or sheet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Shimada to use a shape measurement device constituted by a shape measurement roll so as to measure the canoeing or warpage formed in the metal sheet before entering the quenching zone as exemplified by Akashi et al. wherein doing so would amount to a mere substitution of one shape measuring device for another within the same art that would perform equally well in the Shimada device, especially since rolls or rollers are well known to be employed in metal rolling and quenching systems and processes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ueoka et al. (US 12,534,775), Lee et al. (US 2020/0080168), Yoshimoto et al. (US 10,844,449), Hinojosa Garza et al. (US 11,401,576), Gaensbauer et al. (US 11,192,159), Akashi et al. (US 9,566,625), Uekaji et al. (US 4,785,646) and Bando et al. (JPS6174721) are alco cited in PTO-892.
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