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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed February 4, 2026 has been entered. Claims 11-22 remain pending. The claims have overcome the prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(d).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 11-14, 16, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dando (US5894127A) in view of Boehm (EP2222805B1) and Choi (US20060119867A1).
Regarding claim 11, Dando teaches a method for estimating the thickness of a coating (column 1, lines 10-14) on a moving substrate (column 4, lines 60-63 disclose a rolling direction for roll coating. It is the understanding of the examiner that roll coating is done by moving the substrate being coated), the method comprising the steps of:
i. lighting the moving coated substrate with an illumination source ('infrared light generator' - column 3, line 53) including wavelengths at least from 2.7 to 3.7 μm (column 6, lines 38-40 disclose the use of a mid-infrared range, which includes wavelengths at least from 2.7 to 3.7 microns) and forming an incident angle from 51° to 61° with respect to the normal of the moving coated substrate (column 3, lines 61-62; column 4, lines 55-57);
ii. after reflection on the moving substrate, p-polarizing the light (column 5, line 51-54 discloses the p-polarization; column 6, lines 9-12 discloses the light may be polarized after the light is reflected from the metal substrate) and measuring intensities in a wavelength range WMEAS, at least from 2.7 to 3.7 μm, of the light (column 6, lines 41-45),
iii. determining an absorbance spectrum AMEAS of the coating at least in the wavelength range WMEAS, using a reference spectrum and the measured intensities in step ii. (column 9, lines 25-31).
Dando fails to teach the coating is a varnish coating having a thickness from 0.5 to 6 μm, the substrate being a steel substrate, and steps of:
iv. determining an area under a curve of the intensities in function of the wavelength, representing the absorbance,
v. estimating the varnish thickness using the area under the curve and reference values linking an area under the curve of an absorbance spectrum of the coating to a varnish coating thickness.
However, in the same field of endeavor of coatings on steel sheets, Boehm discloses that varnish coatings on steel sheets are well-known (paragraphs [0002], [0004]), as well as the varnish having a thickness between 0.5 to 3 microns (Table 3, row 1).
Boehm discloses steel sheets are well-known and have many applications (paragraph [0002]) and varnish is frequently applied to steel sheets (or metallic sheets) in order to provide insulation, resistance to mechanical stress and corrosion, and thermal stability (paragraph [0002]). Further, Boehm discloses the varnish thickness having a range from 0.5 to 3 microns shows high performance in scratch resistance and abrasion (paragraph [0048]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the method of Dando to the varnish thickness on a steel substrate taught in Boehm in order to determine the thickness of a varnish to ensure optimal insulation, resistance to mechanical stress and corrosion, and thermal stability.
Dando as modified by Boehm fails to teach the steps of:
iv. determining an area under a curve of the intensities in function of the wavelength, representing the absorbance,
v. estimating the varnish thickness using the area under the curve and reference values linking an area under the curve of an absorbance spectrum of the coating to a varnish coating thickness.
However, in the same field of endeavor of measurements of coating on a metallic surface, Choi discloses a method where the area under the curve of an absorption spectrum is found as a function of wavenumber (integration, paragraph [0058]; Fig. 6a), and that area under the curve is used to determine a correlation to thickness (paragraph [0060]; Fig. 6b).
Choi discloses this method of integration and correlation to find a thickness of an organic coating provides better reliability and is less complicated than other methods (paragraph [0013]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Dando as modified by Boehm with the method of Choi in order to achieve a more reliable and less complicated determination of thickness of a coating.
Regarding claim 12, Dando in view of Boehm and Choi teach the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches the steel substrate is an electrical steel (Boehm: paragraph [0002]).
As discussed above in claim 11, electric steel sheets are well-known (Boehm: paragraph [0002]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to take the method of Dando as modified by Boehm and Choi and apply it to a well-known electrical steel substrate with a reasonable expectation of success and yield the predictable result of measuring a varnish thickness. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Dando as modified by Boehm and Choi with the steel substrate being electric steel as taught in Boehm, and yield the predictable result of measuring a varnish thickness.
Regarding claim 13, Dando in view of Boehm and Choi teach the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches the varnish coating has a thickness from 0.5 to 5 μm (Boehm: Table 3, row 1).
As discussed above in claim 11, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the method of Dando as modified by Boehm and Choi to the varnish thickness on a steel substrate taught in Boehm in order to determine the thickness of a varnish as this thickness ensures insulation, resistance to mechanical stress and corrosion, and thermal stability.
Regarding claim 14, Dando in view of Boehm and Choi teach the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches the varnish coating has a thickness from 0.5 to 2 μm (Boehm: Table 3, row 1, column 5).
As discussed above in claim 11, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the method of Dando as modified by Boehm and Choi to the varnish thickness on a steel substrate taught in Boehm as this thickness ensures insulation, resistance to mechanical stress and corrosion, and thermal stability.
Regarding claim 16, Dando in view of Boehm and Choi teach the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches in step i., the light source L forms an angle from 53° to 59° with respect to the normal of said steel substrate (Dando: column 3, lines 61-62; column 4, lines 55-57).
Regarding claim 21, Dando in view of Boehm and Choi teach the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches in step iii, the reference spectrum is a spectrum of p-polarized rays reflected on a non-coated steel substrate (Dando: column 9, lines 30-31 disclose the use of a reference spectra. It is the understanding of the examiner this reference spectra would have the same polarization as the measurement spectra in order to be an accurate reference).
Regarding claim 22, Dando in view of Boehm and Choi teach the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches the illumination source is a single illumination source including wavelengths at least from 2.7 to 3.7 μm (Dando: column 6, lines 38-40 disclose the use of a mid-infrared range, which includes wavelengths at least from 2.7 to 3.7 microns) and forming an incident angle from 51° to 61° with respect to the normal (Dando: column 3, lines 61-62; column 4, lines 55-57) of the moving (Dando: column 4, lines 60-63 disclose a rolling direction of the substrate. It is the understanding of the examiner that roll coating is done by moving the substrate being coated) coated steel substrate (Boehm: paragraphs [0002], [0004]).
As discussed above in claim 11, steel sheets are well-known (Boehm: paragraph [0002]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to take the method of Dando as modified by Boehm and Choi and apply it to a well-known steel substrate with a reasonable expectation of success and yield the predictable result of measuring a varnish thickness. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Dando as modified by Boehm and Choi with the substrate being a steel substrate as taught in Boehm, and yield the predictable result of measuring a varnish thickness.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dando (US5894127A) in view of Boehm (EP2222805B1) and Choi (US20060119867A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Sassano (D. R. Sassano, "Electrical insulating varnishes: an overview," in IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 25-32, Nov.-Dec. 1992, doi: 10.1109/57.168889.).
Regarding claim 15, Dando in view of Boehm and Choi teach the invention as explained above in claim 11, but fails to teach the varnish coating is a water-based solution comprising 25 to 75 weight percent of resin, 5 to 15 weight percent of solvent and a balance consisting of water.
However, in the same field of endeavor of varnish coatings, Sassano discloses different varnish ratios, including 60% resin with a solvent to water ratio of 20% to 80% (page 28, column 2, paragraph 1). Depending on the solvent to water ratio, this would be 5% to 15% weight percent of solvent in the varnish.
Sassano discloses this ratio achieves a desired viscosity and film build of the varnish (page 28, column 2, paragraph 2). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Dando as modified by Boehm and Choi with the varnish ratio taught in Sassano in order to achieve a desired viscosity and film build of the varnish.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dando (US5894127A) in view of Boehm (EP2222805B1) and Choi (US20060119867A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Honda (JPH01203911A).
Regarding claim 17, Dando in view of Boehm and Choi teach the invention as explained above in claim 11, but fails to teach in step i., the light source L includes wavelength from 1.0 to 5.0 μm and said wavelength range WMEAS is at least from 1.0 to 5.0 μm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of the measurement of organic films on steel substrates, Honda teaches the use of wavelengths of 3.1, 3.4 and 3.7 microns for the input light (paragraph [0013]) as well as the measurement light (paragraph [0014]).
Honda discloses these wavelengths ensure the light penetrates the organic film layer and reaches the metal substrate (paragraphs [0010], [0012]), ensuring a true thickness of the coating is measured. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Dando as modified by Boehm and Choi with the wavelength ranges taught in Honda in order to ensure the coating is fully penetrated in order to measure a true thickness.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dando (US5894127A) in view of Boehm (EP2222805B1) and Choi (US20060119867A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Launer (Herbert F. Launer, "Reflection-Transmission Relationships in Sheet Materials," J. Opt. Soc. Am. 32, 84-93 (1942)).
Regarding claim 18, Dando in view of Boehm and Choi teach the invention as explained above in claim 11, but fails to teach in step i., the illumination source L and said moving coated steel substrate are spaced from 20 cm to 60 cm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical measurement of thin film layers, Launer teaches a light source which is 45-60 cm away from a diffusion screen, where the diffusion screen is 38 mm away from the object being irradiated (page 86, column 1, paragraph 3).
Launder discloses this distance range reduces errors when measuring the reflectance of the light (page 86, column 1, paragraph 3). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Dando as modified by Boehm and Choi with the illumination source distance taught in Launer in order to reduce measurement errors.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dando (US5894127A) in view of Boehm (EP2222805B1) and Choi (US20060119867A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Labbe (WO2020128687A1).
Regarding claim 19, Dando in view of Boehm and Choi teach the invention as explained above in claim 11, but fails to teach the moving coated steel substrate has a strip width, wherein in step i., the illumination source L is configured to illuminate an area having a width as wide as the strip width and a length of at least 20 mm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of measurements of coatings on metallic substrate, Labbe teaches a method where the full-width of the substrate is illuminated (page 2, line 29) and at least a length of 20 mm is illuminated (page 6, lines 30-32 disclose the measurements are repeated so the entire length of the substrate is measured).
Labbe discloses that by measuring the full width and at least 20 mm in length, the measurements are not being influenced by operation conditions and therefore precision is increased (page 7, lines 1-16). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Dando as modified by Boehm and Choi with the illumination area taught in Labbe in order to increase precision.
Regarding claim 20, Dando in view of Boehm and Choi teach the invention as explained above in claim 11, but fails to teach in step ii., the measure is done via a hyperspectral camera.
However, Labbe discloses the use of a hyperspectral camera (page 3, line 21).
Labbe discloses hyperspectral cameras have the advantage of measuring a spectrum of wavelength intensity for each pixel (page 8, line 10), therefore enabling detailed analysis. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Dando as modified by Boehm and Choi with the hyperspectral camera taught in Labbe in order to enable a detailed analysis of the measurement spectrum.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 10:00 - 7:00 CT.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights