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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2-13, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeh et al, US Pub. 2016/0339495.
Regarding claim 1, Zeh et al disclose a method for marking of workpieces comprising: a steel blank 2 which comprises an anti-scaling protective layer 22 (substrate); a marking 3 is applied to the anti-scaling protective layer 22, the marking 3 comprises color pigments, preferably ceramic particles or phosphor particles, whereby the marking 3 is distinguishable from the blank 2 by a reader; the workpiece 1 has a metal body 11 arises in the process, said metal body determining the shape of the workpiece 1; the marking 3 is partly pressed and/or fused into the anti-scaling protective layer 22; a lacquer 4 is subsequently applied to the marking 3 and to the anti-scaling protective layer 22, covering the marking. (See Figs. 1-2; par. 0050-0063).
Zeh et al disclose a lacquer material covering the marking but fails to specifically disclose an opaque lacquer that contains pigments that completely covers the marking that requires electromagnetic radiation to read the marking by thermal imaging. However, the type of covering material is a matter of choice for meeting specific customer requirements, wherein materials that require electromagnetic radiation for thermal reading or imaging typically involves the use of infrared radiation so that that thermal cameras equipped with thermal sensors capture the radiation to create thermal images. These cameras are known in the art and are basically used to meet specific customer requirements. With respect to using the camera flash to heat up the cover material and the specific duration of the flash do not requirement any additional technical elements, it is just a matter of the reading processing for determining the information in the marking. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, with respect to the thermal conductivity ratio between the substrate and the marking material, these material are chosen during the manufacturing in order to sustain certain environmental conditions, such as heat and/or cold. It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan to select the appropriate materials in order to meet the specific environment conditions required by the manufacturing process.
Regarding claims 4-8 and 17-18, the specific material for marking the workpiece or the material for the substrate are matters of choice for meeting customer requirements. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 9, the steps of providing a substrate, applying the marking on the substrate, heating of the substrate/marking, wherein the marking is readable after the hot forming are disclosed by the prior art (par. 0050+).
Regarding claims 11-12, the marking includes a plurality of dots, wherein the size and thickness of the marking and/or the substrate is a matter of choices for meeting specific customer requirements. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 13, wherein the marking is flush with the substrate or at least partially recessed in the substrate (see Fig. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The applicant teaches a method for reading a marking on a substrate which includes covering the marking with a stack of covering layers, irradiating the stack of covering layers with electromagnetic radiation, wherein the stack of covering layers comprises a first covering layer directly located on the substrate and on the marking and being a cathodic dip coating layer, a second covering layer directly applied to the first covering layer, wherein the second covering layer is a filler, wherein a side of the second covering layer facing away from the substrate is smooth so that after the second covering layer has been applied, a contour of the marking is no longer recognizable and the marking is not feelable, a third covering layer directly applied to the second covering layer, the third covering layer being a basecoat, and a fourth covering layer directly applied to the third covering layer, the fourth covering layer being a clear coat, and wherein a thickness of the stack of covering layers is at most 0.2 mm, inclusive. These limitations were not shown by the prior art of record, nor would have been fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See examiner remarks.
Remarks:
In response to the applicant’s argument regarding thermography that the examiner failed to provide a prior art supporting that it is a common method, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Jonas, US Pub. 2017/0363403, discloses a method and an apparatus for inspecting workpieces, wherein a thermal imaging sensor, thermography is commonly used in the art. With respect to reading the marking, yes it is possible to make it unreadable based the type of lacquer material or the stack size of the lacquer, it is not required to do so. The marking can be read with the appropriate reader. The applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Refer to the rejection above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:00-8:00.
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, Michael G Lee can be reached at 571-272-2398. 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.
DANIEL ST CYR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DANIEL ST CYR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876