DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 2nd
The claim rejection(s) under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 2nd Paragraph or AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter on claim 15 is withdrawn because the claim has been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejection(s) under 35. U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakai et al. US Patent Number 4,847,169 hereinafter SAKAI on claims 12-14 and 17 are maintained. The rejection is repeated below for convenience. Claim(s) 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakai et al. US Patent Number 4,847,169 hereinafter SAKAI.
As for claim 12, SAKAI teaches "Alloyed-zinc-plated steel sheet the alloyed layer of which is minutely cellulated is disclosed. Such an alloyed- zinc-plated steel sheet can be prepared by carrying out the vacuum deposition plating in an inert atmosphere containing 1.0-30 ppm oxygen by volume oxygen and subjecting the plated steel sheet to an alloying heat treatment" (abstract) and "Alloyed-zinc-plated steel sheets exel ordinary zinc plated steel sheets in continuous operability in spot welding, in adhesion of electrodeposited coating films and in corrosion resistance" ( column 1, lines 10-13), i.e. A method of producing a coated flat steel product, the method comprising: providing a steel substrate, applying an anticorrosion coating composed of zinc or a zinc alloy and unavoidable impurities by physical vapor phase deposition to the steel substrate.
SAKAI further teaches "The preferred temperature of steel strip immediately before the vapor deposition is between 190° C. and 280°C" (column 2, lines 21-23), i.e. having a substrate temperature Tsubstrate.
SAKAI further teaches "The evacuation in vapor deposition chamber is 0.01 -0.1 Torr" (Coloumn 3, Table 1). Examiner notes that this pressure value appears to fall within the claimed range of a pressure on applying the anticorrosion coating is not more than a maximum process pressure Pmax for which:
P
m
a
x
=
1.0
m
b
a
r
C
°
2
(
T
s
u
b
s
t
r
a
t
e
6
)
2
SAKAI further teaches "The total length of the plating line was 70" ( column 3, lines 41-42) and in Table 1 that the line speed is 15 m/min (column 3). Examiner notes that when calculating the amount of time the line is exposed to the vacuum, it appears to fall within wherein the steel substrate, prior to the applying of the anticorrosion coating, is subjected to a vacuum treatment for a duration tvacuum for which:
t
v
a
c
u
u
m
≥
max
(
4
s
;
24
-
0.2
2
°
C
*
T
s
u
b
s
t
r
a
t
e
)
.
As for claim 13, SAKAI further teaches "The total length of the plating line was 70m" (column 3, lines 41-42) and in Table 1 that the line speed is 15 m/min (column 3).
Examiner notes that when calculating the amount of time the line is exposed to the vacuum, it appears to fall within wherein the steel substrate, prior to the applying of the
anticorrosion coating, is subjected to a vacuum treatment for a duration tvacuum for which:
t
v
a
c
u
u
m
≥
max
6
s
;
24
-
0.15
2
°
C
*
T
s
u
b
s
t
r
a
t
e
.
As for claim 14, SAKAI further teaches "The evacuation in vapor deposition chamber is 0.01-0.1 Torr" (Coloumn 3, Table 1). Examiner notes that this pressure value appears to fall within the claimed range of a pressure on applying the anticorrosion coating is not more than a maximum process pressure Pmax for which:
P
m
a
x
=
0.6
m
b
a
r
C
°
2
(
T
s
u
b
s
t
r
a
t
e
6
)
2
As for claim 17, SAKAI teaches "The process of the present invention makes use of vacuum vapor deposition. Thus it enables enjoyment of the advantages of vacuum vapor deposition. That is, it permits manufacture of the alloyed-zinc-plated steel sheets with plating thicknesses ranging from thin to thick or with . differential thickness either single-side plated or double-side plated" (column 2, lines 38-44), i.e. wherein the anticorrosion coating composed of zinc or a zinc alloy and unavoidable impurities is applied to the steel substrate by physical vapor deposition.
SAKAI further teaches "The preferred temperature of steel strip immediately before the vapor deposition is between 190° C. and 280°C" (column 2, lines 21-23), and further shows in Fig. 1 the sheet in a deposition line i.e. in that the steel substrate is adjusted to a substrate temperature and provided in a coating chamber.
SAKAI further teaches "The evacuation in vapor deposition chamber is 0.01 -0.1 Torr" (Coloumn 3, Table 1), i.e. where the pressure in the coating chamber is regulated.
SAKAI teaches "In the vacuum vapor deposition 5 chambers 6a, 6b, guide rollers Sa, Sb and a zinc-vaporizing bath (not shown) are provided. A steel strip 1 passes through this vapor deposition line" (paragraph 3, lines 58), i.e. wherein the vapor is generated in a chamber separate from the vapor deposition line such that it must be provided to the vapor deposition, i.e. where zinc or a zinc alloy as coating material is injected into the coating chamber at an injection site.
SAKAI further teaches "The alloying heat treatment was carried out using a separate batch type furnace" (column 3,lines 42-43), i.e. where the zinc or zinc alloy is adjusted to a temperature.
As for claim 29, Examiner respectfully points out that the limitation of wherein the steel substrate is first adjusted to the substrate temperature is so broad that it reads on natural law of thermodynamics where a substrate will with come to an equilibrium temperature with the environment around it. As temperature is not limited by the claims, this limitation is inherent to any substrate.
SAKAI further shows in Fig. 1 that passes successively through a vacuum region and a coating chamber, wherein the vacuum treatment is conducted in the vacuum region and the application of the anticorrosion coating is in the coating chamber.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sakai et al. US Patent Number 4,847,169 hereinafter SAKAI on claim 18 is maintained. The rejection is repeated below for convenience. Claim(s) 25-28 and 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. US Patent Number 4,847,169 hereinafter SAKAI as applied to claim 12 above.
As for claim 18, SAKAI teaches "This invention also provides a process for preparing alloyed-zinc-plated steel sheet comprising carrying out vacuum vapor deposition zinc plating of steel sheet in an inert atmosphere containing 1.0-30 ppm by volume of oxygen and subjecting the plated steel sheet to an alloying heat treatment" (paragraph 18). It is expected that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of converting the ppm to a volume percentage which appears to overlap with the instantly claimed range of wherein the applying of the anticorrosion coating takes place in a protective gas atmosphere with an oxygen content of less than 5% by volume. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir.1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
As for claim 25, SAKAI teaches “The sealing roller chamber comprises a plurality of vacuum chambers, each provided with a pair of sealing rollers and evacuated until the pressure of 0.01-0.1 Torr. in the vapor deposition chamber” (column 3, lines 21-24). It is expected that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention could have converted the Torr of SAKAI to the claimed mbar, which overlap with the instant claimed range of wherein the vacuum treatment comprises holding the steel substrate at a pressure of less than 800 mbar. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir.1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
As for claim 26, SAKAI teaches “The sealing roller chamber comprises a plurality of vacuum chambers, each provided with a pair of sealing rollers and evacuated until the pressure of 0.01-0.1 Torr. in the vapor deposition chamber” (column 3, lines 21-24). It is expected that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention could have converted the Torr of SAKAI to the claimed mbar, which overlap with the instant claimed range of wherein the vacuum treatment comprises holding the steel substrate at a pressure of not more than 500 mbar. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir.1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
As for claim 27, SAKAI teaches “The sealing roller chamber comprises a plurality of vacuum chambers, each provided with a pair of sealing rollers and evacuated until the pressure of 0.01-0.1 Torr. in the vapor deposition chamber” (column 3, lines 21-24). It is expected that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention could have converted the Torr of SAKAI to the claimed mbar, which overlap with the instant claimed range of wherein the vacuum treatment comprises holding the steel substrate at a pressure of not more than 200 mbar. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir.1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
As for claim 28, SAKAI further teaches "The total length of the plating line was 70" ( column 3, lines 41-42) and in Table 1 that the line speed is 15 m/min (column 3). SAKAI teaches “The pressurizable chamber 4 connects the ambient pressure system including the pretreatment furnace 2, the gas jet cooler 3, etc. and the evacuated system including the sealing roller chambers 5a, 5b, the vapor deposition .chambers 6a, 6b, etc” (column 3, lines 16-20), i.e. wherein more than half of the line is performed in a vacuum.
Examiner notes that the vacuum chambers representing chamber 5a is not limited by size, thus SAKAI claims any size vacuum chamber which means that it’s a range that overlaps with wherein the duration tvacuum is at least 3 seconds and not more than 3 minutes. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir.1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
As for claim 30, SAKAI teaches “The sealing roller chamber comprises a plurality of vacuum chambers, each provided with a pair of sealing rollers and evacuated until the pressure of 0.01-0.1 Torr. in the vapor deposition chamber” (column 3, lines 21-24) and shows in Table 1 that the evacuation in the vapor deposition chamber is “0.01-0.1 Torr”. It is expected that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention could have converted the pressures of SAKAI to the claimed percentages, which overlap with the instant claimed range of wherein between the vacuum treatment and application of the anticorrosion coating, the steel substrate is subjected only to environments at a pressure of not higher than 120% of the average pressure in the vacuum treatment. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir.1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sakai et al. US Patent Number 4,847,169 hereinafter SAKAI as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hass et al. US PGPub 2013/0202815 hereinafter HASS on claim 15 and 16 are maintained. The rejection is repeated below for convenience.
As for claim 15, SAKAI is silent on wherein the pressure on applying the anticorrosion coating is at least 1 mbar.
HASS teaches "Depositing pure aluminum and aluminum alloy coatings onto substrates using directed vapor deposition (DVD) method is presented herein" (abstract, lines 1-3) and "The target composition was 75%Al-24% Zn-1 % Sn (wt%). Separate sources of aluminum, zinc and tin were co-evaporated in the desired ratio to create the alloy coatings" (paragraph 60, lines 8-10).
HASS further teaches "The pressure ratio (ratio of the carrier gas to the chamber pressure) can be used to deposit coatings onto the region of interest, increase deposition rate, increase deposition efficiency. Pressure ratios between 1-500 are of interest. Ratios between 5-10 are of high interest. Pressure ratios may be varied during coating deposition to vary the distribution profile of the source material onto the substrate or component of interest. Typical operating pressures are approximately in the 1 to 50pa range (i.e. about7.5x10-3 to 0.375 torr), but may also include the range of about 10-4 to about 103 torr. Other alternative ranges include, but not limited thereto, the following: about 10-3 to about 102 torr, about 10-2 to about 10 torr, about 0.1 torr to about 1 torr, about 0.05 to about 0.5 torr, to about 0.025 torr to about 0.3 torr. It should be appreciated that the operating pressures may be less than 10-4 or greater than 103 torr" (paragraph 64). It is expected that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of converting the torr to a mba which appears to overlap with the instantly claimed range of wherein the pressure on applying the anticorrosion coating is at least 1 mbar.
HASS further teaches that its method of coating has "Advanced vapor deposition approaches that facilitate non line-of-sight deposition to enable internal regions of components to be coated, allow flexible control of the coating composition and microstructure to enable dense coatings of a wide range of materials" (paragraph 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the DVD method of HASS to apply the coatings of SAKAI such that it includes a range that overlaps with wherein the pressure on applying the anticorrosion coating is at least 1 mbar because HASS teaches that such a method allows for flexible control of the coating composition and denser deposition of coating.
As for claim 16, SAKAI further teaches "The preferred temperature of steel strip immediately before the vapor deposition is between 190° C. and 280°C" (column 2, lines 21-23), wherein the heat of the substrate is expected to carry and further "The preferred alloying treatment temperature is 220°c - 360°C" (column 2, lines 25-26), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein the substrate temperature on applying the anticorrosion coating is greater than 100°G. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sakai et al. US Patent Number 4,847,169 hereinafter SAKAI as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Shimogori et al. US Patent Number 5,002,837 hereinafter SHIMOGORI on claim 19 and 20 are maintained. The rejection is repeated below for convenience.
As for claim 19, SAKAI is silent on the coating rate.
SHIMOGORI teaches "Zn-Mg alloy is plated by vapor deposition on the surface of metals. Since Zn and Mg are vapor-deposited as a vapor mixture of an optional ratio on the surface of metals, plated layers of excellent corrosion resistance, peeling resistance of coating film, formability, etc. can be formed" (abstract, lines 1-6).
SHIMOGORI further teaches "In this case, the thickness of plating layer can be adjusted depending on the running speed of the steel sheet 3, the vapor amount of each of metals, etc., and the content ratio of Zn and Mg constituting the plating layer can be adjusted by controlling the ratio for the vapor amount of Zn and Mg from the respective evaporizing vessels 2a and 2b. Further, the time for heating and holding necessary for the mutual diffusion can be adjusted depending on the running speed of the steel sheet 3 or the running length of the steel sheet 3 in the heating device 29" (column 23, lines 10-21 ), i.e. wherein the coating rate of the process is a result effective variable dictating the thickness of the coating applied.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the coating rate such that the desired thickness is achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
As for claim 20, SAKAI teaches "That is, it permits manufacture of the alloyedzinc- plated steel sheets with plating thicknesses ranging from thin to thick or with . differential thickness either single-side plated or double-side plated" (column 2, lines 39- 44), but is silent on a specific thickness.
SHIMOGORI teaches "Although the thickness of the plating layer has no particular restrictions, the purpose of corrosion protection can be attained generally by defining the coating weight to greater than about 3 g/m2 thereby 15 ensuring the thickness of greater than 0.5 μm" ( column 7, lines 12-16), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein the anticorrosion coating has a thickness d of 5-10 μm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a range that overlaps with wherein the anticorrosion coating has a thickness d of 5-10 μ min the process of SAKAI because SHIMOGORI teaches that such a thickness provides corrosion protection.
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sakai et al. US Patent Number 4,847,169 hereinafter SAKAI and Shimogori et al. US Patent Number 5,002,837 hereinafter SHIMOGORI as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Hori et al. US Patent Number 6,159,622 hereinafter HORI on claim 20 is maintained. The rejection is repeated below for convenience.
As for claim 21, SAKAI and SHIMOGORI are silent on the tensile strength of the steel.
HORI teaches "Nevertheless, the grain size of inside of the base metal may preferably be set to the adequate large size sufficient to 5 provide the necessary properties required of steel sheets such as formability, other than coating adhesion. No particular strength of products is specified. However, the invention is most preferably applied to materials having tensile strengths of about 400 MPa or lower in practice. Further, 10 from a practical viewpoint, the tensile strength of the steel sheet may preferably be set at 280 MPa or higher" (column 6, lines 7-12), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein the steel substrate has a tensile strength of not more than 500 MPa, and a tensile strength of more than 200 MPa. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); ln re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See M PEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a range that overlaps with wherein the steel substrate has a tensile strength of not more than 500 MPa, and a tensile strength of more than 200 MPa in the process of SAKAI and SHIMOGORI because HORI teaches that such a steel sheet with those properties has the necessary formability to be processed.
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sakai et al. US Patent Number 4,847,169 hereinafter SAKAI and Shimogori et al. US Patent Number 5,002,837 hereinafter SHIMOGORI, and Hori et al. US Patent Number 6,159,622 hereinafter HORI as applied to claim 19 and 21 above, and further in view of Morishita et al. US PGPub 2020/0156349 hereinafter MORISHITA on claim 22 is maintained. The rejection is repeated below for convenience.
As for claim 22, SAKAI, SHIMOGORI and HORI are silent on the ferrite content of the steel.
MORISHITA teaches "There is provided a hot-dip galvanized steel sheet with a microstructure in a 1/s thickness to 3/s thickness range whose middle is a¼ thickness from a surface of a base steel sheet" (abstract, lines 1-3).
MORISHITA teaches "The ferrite is a structure having excellent ductility. However, the ferrite is soft and thus it has low strength, so that when the volume fraction of the ferrite is set to exceed 97%, it is impossible to obtain a hot-dip galvanized steel sheet with sufficient maximum tensile strength. For this reason, the volume fraction of the ferrite is set to 97% or less. In order to increase the maximum tensile strength of the hot-dip galvanized steel sheet, the volume fraction of the ferrite is preferably set to 92% or less, and more preferably set to 85% or less" (paragraph 126, lines 1-10), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein the steel substrate is a ferritic steel, having a ferrite content of more than 80% by volume. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a range that overlaps with wherein the steel substrate is a ferritic steel, having a ferrite content of more than 80% by volume in the steel of SAKAI, SHIMOGORI and HORI because MORISHITA teaches that such a range produces a steel sheet with a sufficient maximum tensile strength.
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sakai et al. US Patent Number 4,847,169 hereinafter SAKAI as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Mikawa et al. US PGPub 2019/0233944 hereinafter MIKAWA on claim 23 and 24 are maintained. The rejection is repeated below for convenience.
As for claim 23, SAKAI is silent on degreasing.
MIKAWA teaches "A surface treatment apparatus includes a treatment vessel including a treatment space in which a metal component is disposed a spray nozzle that supplies mist of a non-chromate conversion treatment liquid to the treatment" (abstract, lines 1-4) and "The metal component Smay be formed of at least one of a cold-rolled steel sheet, a hot-rolled steel sheet, a stainless steel sheet, an electro galvanized steel sheet, a galvanized steel sheet, a zinc-aluminum alloy plated steel sheet, a zinc-iron alloy plated steel sheet, a zinc-magnesium alloy plated steel sheet, a zinc-aluminum magnesium alloy plated steel sheet, an aluminum based plated steel sheet, an aluminum-silicon alloy plated steel sheet, a tin based plated steel sheet, a lead-tin alloy plated steel sheet, a chromium based plated steel sheet, and a nickel based plated steel sheet" (paragraph 41, lines 3-13).
MIKAWA teaches "Preferably, the surface treatment method according to the present invention further includes performing a degreasing treatment and an oxide film removing treatment for the metal component before the mist spraying treatment. The metal component is sequentially conveyed by a conveyance device into a degreasing vessel in which the degreasing treatment is performed, a deoxidizing treatment vessel in which the oxide film removing treatment is performed, and the treatment vessel in which the mist spraying treatment is performed" (paragraph 21 ), i.e. wherein degreasing is performed prior to an application of a coating.
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include degreasing the steel substrate in the process of SAKAI because MIKAWA teaches that it was known method to prepare a steel sheet for a coating process and further, as made clear in the name, would remove grease from the surface.
As for claim 24, SAKAI is silent on deoxidizing.
MIKAWA teaches "A surface treatment apparatus includes a treatment vessel including a treatment space in which a metal component is disposed a spray nozzle that supplies mist of a non-chromate conversion treatment liquid to the treatment" (abstract, lines 1-4) and "The metal component S may be formed of at least one of a cold-rolled steel sheet, a hot-rolled steel sheet, a stainless steel sheet, an electro galvanized steel sheet, a galvanized steel sheet, a zinc-aluminum alloy plated steel sheet, a zinc-iron alloy plated steel sheet, a zinc-magnesium alloy plated steel sheet, a zinc-aluminum magnesium alloy plated steel sheet, an aluminum based plated steel sheet, an aluminum-silicon alloy plated steel sheet, a tin based plated steel sheet, a lead-tin alloy plated steel sheet, a chromium based plated steel sheet, and a nickel based plated steel sheet" (paragraph 41, lines 3-13).
MIKAWA teaches "Preferably, the surface treatment method according to the present invention further includes performing a degreasing treatment and an oxide film removing treatment for the metal component before the mist spraying treatment. The metal component is sequentially conveyed by a conveyance device into a degreasing vessel in which the degreasing treatment is performed, a deoxidizing treatment vessel in which the oxide film removing treatment is performed, and the treatment vessel in which the mist spraying treatment is performed" (paragraph 21 ), i.e. wherein degreasing is performed prior to an application of a coating.
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include deoxidizing the steel substrate in the process of SAKAI because MIKAWA teaches that it was known method to prepare a steel sheet for a coating process and further such a process removed oxide films from the surface.
Claim(s) 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. US Patent Number 4,847,169 hereinafter SAKAI as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kok et al. US Patent Number 7,198,678 hereinafter KOK.
As for claim 31, SAKAI teaches “The pressurizable chamber 4 connects the ambient pressure system including the pretreatment furnace 2, the gas jet cooler 3, etc. and the evacuated system including the sealing roller chambers 5a, 5b, the vapor deposition .chambers 6a, 6b, etc. 20 The sealing roller chamber comprises a plurality of vacuum chambers, each provided with a pair of sealing rollers and evacuated until the pressure of 0.01-0.1 Torr. in the vapor deposition chamber” (column 3, lines 16-24), and further shows that second 5a leads directly to 6a in Fig. 1 i.e. wherein the vacuum region and the coating chamber are in direct succession.
SAKAI is silent on the chambers being separated by a pressure lock.
However, Examiner does note that that 5a and 6a are separate chambers.
KOK teaches “Apparatus for performing at least one processing operation on a substrate, the apparatus being provided with at least one process chamber and a vacuum lock for the purposes of placing the substrate from the surroundings into a process chamber without the reduced pressure in the respective process chamber being lost” (abstract, lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a pressure lock or vacuum lock between the chambers of SAKAI because KOK teaches that such a lock can protect the vacuum from being lost.
In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the pressure lock. It is the position of the examiner that the criticality on the lock does not provide patentable distinction as the pressure lock appears to be incidental absent evidence.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are summarized and addressed below:
(a) Applicant argues that the vacuum is only in the chamber 6a and 6b where the coating takes place.
Examiner notes that this is false.
SAKAI explicitly teaches "the evacuated system including the sealing roller chambers 5a, 5b, the vapor 15 deposition .chambers 6a, 6b, etc" (column 3, lines 16-20), i.e. wherein the evacuated system is the vacuum system. 5a, 5b, 6a and 6b are all vacuum under vacuum. Further SAKAI teaches "The sealing roller chamber comprises a plurality of vacuum chambers, each provided with a pair of sealing rollers and evacuated until the pressure of 0.01-0.1 Torr" (column 3, lines 21-24).
Applicant's interpretation of SAKAI is directly contradicted by the prior art's explicit teachings.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner will provide the following discussion on the rejection.
SAKAI clearly shows in Fig. 1 and describes in column 2, lines 67 - column 3, 25) that the entire system is split at chamber 4 between a first atmospheric section and a second vacuum section. This entire line is 70 meters long, and the substrate moves at 15 m/min.
In order for SAKAI to fall outside of the claimed range (Tvacuum ≥ 4s) the entire 5a section would have to be less than a meter long.
See below:
15
m
m
i
n
*
1
m
i
n
60
s
e
c
=
0.25
m
s
e
c
0.25
m
s
e
c
*
4
sec
=
1
m
e
t
e
r
From the Figure, and the teachings, it is clearly inherent that 5a is larger than 1 meter, especially considering it is made up of multiple vacuum chambers, as shown above. Further, Examiner notes that the scope of the claim isn't just limited to 5a being the vacuum treatment. In fact, the claim is open-ended which means it can include other steps and element, such as a first vapor deposition that takes place before the claimed one, as it is only applied to one side of the substrate, so other side of the substrate only experiences a vacuum treatment. All of this still falls within the scope of the claim. With that in mind, it is even more clear the vacuum chambers of 5a and 6a are longer than 1 meter, and therefore tvacuum is greater than 4 seconds, based on SAKAI's teachings.
Applicant's arguments do not consider all of SAKAI's teachings and rely on misrepresenting them, so therefore their argument cannot be considered persuasive.
Examiner would also take the time to comment that the claims as written are largely just reciting broadly claiming relationships between parameters without any limitation on the shape, size, or construction of the apparatus.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN A DAGENAIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1114. The examiner can normally be reached 8-12 and 1-5.
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, Dah Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/KRISTEN A DAGENAIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights