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 the Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending wherein claims 1 and 3-7 have been preliminarly amended and claims 8-19 have been preliminarily added.
Examiner Note
Claim 1 references “threading speed of the steel strip”. The Examiner notes that strip threading refers to the initial, mechanical procedure of feeding or putting the leading end of a continuous metal strip or wire rope through the multi-stage path of the furnace before regular heat treatment operations begin.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2, 7-8, 10, 13 and 17 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 2 recites the limitation "the subsequent stage" in claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1, 3, 5-6, 11, 14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara et al. (JP 2018-066040) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 4,773,949).
In regard to claims 1, 3, 6, 14, 16 and 18, Matsubara et al. (JP ‘040) discloses a method for annealing hot rolled electrical steel sheet (strip) comprising 1 mass percent or more silicon using annealing equipment including a heating zone, a soaking zone and a cooling zone arranged in that order wherein the heating zone (upstream of the soaking zone) would include an induction heater (rapid heating device) wherein a thickness meter would be present during or after the hot rolling step ([0012-0013], [0019-0020], [0040] and Figures).
Matsubara et al. (JP ‘040) discloses a method of annealing electrical steel sheet (strip) as set forth above, but Matsubara et al. (JP ‘040) does not specify wherein the heating temperature of the rapid heating device for the streel strip would be determined from a value of LSD defined by a thickness of the steel strip measured with the thickness meter and a threading speed of the steel strip during annealing as represented by LSD = t x LS…(1)
where t is the thickness of the steel strip and LS is the threading speed of the steel strip.
Yamaguchi et al. (‘949) discloses LSD being greater than or equal to 100 and being a product of the line speed (m/min) and strip gauge (mm) in order to prevent transverse displacement of a metal strip when continuously annealing the metal strip in a continuous annealing furnace (column 2) and modifying the temperature accordingly (column 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to modify the method of annealing steel sheet (strip), as disclosed by Matsubara et al. (JP ‘040), by ensuring an LSD of greater than or equal to 100, as disclosed by Yamaguchi et al. (‘949), in order to prevent transverse displacement of the sheet or strip, as disclosed by Yamaguchi et al. (‘949) (columns 1-2).
In regard to claims 5 and 11, Matsubara et al. (JP ‘040) discloses wherein the exit temperature during the induction heating would be constant at 70°C [0029-0030].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 7-8, 10, 13 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claims 2, 7-8, 10, 13 and 17, neither Matsubara et al. (JP ‘040) alone, or in combination with Yamaguchi et al. (‘949) consider the LSD in combination with the width of the steel strip or the LSD in combination with a furnace temperature in the heating zone after the rapid heating device or the LSD in combination with a steel strip temperature on an exit side of the heating zone or the LSD in combination with a furnace temperature in the soaking zone, or the LSD and the steel temperature on an exit side of the soaking zone.
Claims 4, 9, 12, 15 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claims 4, 9, 12, 15 and 19, neither Matsubara et al. (JP ‘040) nor Yamaguchi et al. (‘949) specify wherein the heating temperature of the rapid heating device is determined by feeding back a furnace temperature in the heating zone on a subsequent stage after the rapid heating device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamada (‘270) teaches annealing furnace with heating zone, soaking zone and cooling zone.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 4 pm.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights