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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: cross-reference to related application should be included in page 1 under Description, and also to updated the status of the parent US application serial No. 17/278,144 and Now US Patent No. 12098465. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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.
Claims 1-4, 14 and 15, each includes at least one of the following the following terms “accumulated operation conditions” and “input operation condition”; both phrases are vague because the claims fail to recite what constitutes said conditions or condition; and since they are not defined in the claims, it is unclear what each of these condition or conditions encompasses. Even though both terms are mentioned throughout the specification, they have not been clearly defined (i.e. to include examples) as what process parameters are covered under said condition or conditions. Furthermore, there is no table or list of data in the specification showing a use of said operation condition(s) to support said claimed accumulated operation conditions or input operation condition. Therefore, the claims are rendered indefinite since the metes and bounds are unascertainable.
Claim 2, line lines 2-3, recites the limitation “building a prediction model by training the neural network with the accumulated operation condition”, In particular, the term “prediction model” appears vague because it is unclear whether said term is intended to mean at least one of the following as know models in the art: “a coating weight prediction model”, “a coating thickness prediction”, “coating or plating prediction model” or “plating process model”, also see for example see US 7,840,303 or KR20070067891. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite since the metes and bounds are unascertainable.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the database" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6, recites the limitation “comparing the first air knife pressure and the second air knife pressure, and correcting the first air knife pressure and the second air knife pressure according to the comparison result”. In particular, it is unclear how any correction is necessitated in the manner as claimed when no indication of error or deviation is established in the claim. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite since the
scope is unascertainable.
Claim 15, recites the limitation “the operation condition includes any one or more
of an operation condition related to the strip process in which the strip process is performed, an operation condition related to the air knife, and an operation condition related to the strip”. In particular, it is unclear from the manner in which the claim is set forth as to what constitutes the operation condition or what element (s) the operation condition encompasses because the limitation calling for “an operation condition related to the air knife, and an operation condition related to the strip” does not specify any
operation variable(s) or parameter(s) constituting the claimed “operation condition”. The
claim is therefore rendered indefinite since the metes and bounds are unascertainable.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that because the phrase “accumulated operations conditions” is neither clearly defined in the claims nor in the specification; therefore, for Examination
Purposes, the Examiner interprets said claimed “accumulated operations conditions” to mean or comprises the measured values or data of the air knife gap or distance and the air knife pressure according to the production process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-4, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being
anticipated by Peng et al. (CN106167887, also see The Espacenet English Machine
Translation Version “EEMTV”: Abstract, Description and Claims).
Regarding claims 1-4, 14 and 15, Peng et al. teaches at least a method of controlling a weight of a coating on a strip by using an air knife disposed in a travelling direction of the strip in a continuous plating process in which the strip is dipped in a molten metal pot and is coated (see “EEMTV”: Abstract, Description para [0002], [0004], [0006]-[0007], [0011], [0012]-[ 0013]), the method comprising: measuring or obtaining current production line speed, air knife distance or gap, air knife pressure, strip thickness, coating thickness and using these parameters as input to a neural network prediction model (see “EEMTV”: Description para [0023], [0033]), training the neural network prediction model with the measured data or accumulated operation conditions and using the neural network prediction model to predict a target coating thickness according to current operating conditions data (see (see “EEMTV”: Description para [0023], [0033])
Peng et al. also teaches a method including deriving or obtaining a target air knife pressure, air knife gap and coating weight by using the neural network prediction model (see “EEMTV”: Abstract, Description para [0016], [0023], [0029], [0033]).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 5-13 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.
9. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject
matter: Peng et al. differs from the instant claimed invention by failing to teach and/or adequately suggest as in claim 5: at least a method of controlling a weight coated on a strip comprising: deriving a first air knife gap for one surface of the strip based on the input operation condition, and deriving a second air knife gap for the other surface of the strip based on the input operation condition, and a first prediction model for one surface of the strip and a second prediction model for the other surface of the strip, and deriving a first air knife pressure for the one surface of the strip by applying at least an input operation condition and a first air knife gap to the first prediction model, and deriving a second air knife pressure for the other surface of the strip by applying at least an input operation condition and a second air knife gap to the second prediction model; and other claimed features.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Noh et al. (US 12,098,465), Readal et al. (US4,135,006) and Kim et al. (WO2008/0789910) are also cited in PTO-892.
11. 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