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 Claims
Claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 11-14 have been amended, claims 2 and 15 have been canceled and therefore claims 1 and 3-14 are currently under consideration in the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: cross-reference to related application should be included in page 1, with the parent US application serial No. 17/278,144 status updated as now US Patent No. 12098465.
Note, the instant application 18/798,699 is a divisional application of 17/278,144, now, US 12,098,465. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 5, lines 7, 8, 11 and 13, it is suggested to replace “first prediction model” and “second prediction model” with --first weight prediction model--; and --second weight prediction model--, respectively. 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 and 3-14 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 1 as amended recites the limitation "deriving an air knife gap based on an input operation condition; and deriving an air knife pressure based on the input operation condition and the air knife gap by using the coating weight prediction model" in lines 6-8. The following can be deduced from the limitation (i) the coating weight prediction model is used to acquire the air knife gap based on the input operation condition, and (ii) the coating weight prediction model is used to acquire the air knife pressure based on the input operation condition and the air knife gap. It is therefore unclear as to why the derivation of the air knife pressure is based on both the input operation condition and the air knife gap and not the input operation condition alone since the air knife gap itself is dictated by the input operation condition; furthermore, it appears the input operation condition alone would be sufficient as the basis for obtaining the air knife pressure. The limitation as claimed is confusing; and thereby raising an issue of clarity under 112(b). The claim is therefore deemed indefinite since the metes and bounds are unascertainable.
Claim 1 as amended recites the limitation "wherein the accumulated operation
conditions stored in a database and the input operation condition comprise a speed of a line in which a strip plating process is performed, an air knife gap, an air knife pressure, and at least one of a kind of steel, a thickness, a width, a vibration and a tension of the strip, and an air knife height and angle” in lines 9-12. It is unclear from the manner in which the limitation is written if the accumulated operation conditions and the input operation condition are the same or in other words which of the listed variable or variables is associated with each one of the accumulated operation conditions and the input operation condition, particular since the input operation condition appears comprise a singular variable or condition, and the accumulated operation conditions appears to be comprises a plurality of variable of conditions. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite due to the ambiguities in the meaning of the limitation; and thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable.
Claim 6 as amended recites the limitation "when a difference between the first air knife pressure and the second air knife pressure is smaller than a predetermined threshold value, outputting each of the first air knife pressure and the second air knife pressure” in lines 3-5. The limitation as written appears incomplete, in that the word “outputting” does not clearly show how and where said first air knife pressure and said second air knife pressure obtained in the comparison step is transmitted to, used as an input or utilized; thereby rendering the claim indefinite since the scope is unascertainable.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that because the definition provided in claim 1 as instantly amended
claim 1 for the limitations “accumulated operations conditions” and “input operation
condition” appears confusing and also raises an issue of clarity under 112(b); they are not accorded and substantial patentable weight in the instant office action; and therefore, for examination purposes, the Examiner interprets said claimed “accumulated operations conditions” to mean or comprise the measured values or data of the air knife gap or distance and the air knife pressure according to the coating or plating process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 3, 4 and 14, 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, 3, and 14, 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
10. Claims 5-13 remain 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 for the same reasons as indicated in the previous office action mailed 03/30/2026.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 with respect to claims 1, 3 and 14, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1, 3, 4 and 14, Applicant filed no substantive argument(s) why the rejection is error, and hence the rejection has been maintained based on the claim interpretation above.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, Applicant argued that said claims have been amended to more clearly define the claimed invention; however, the amendment did not completely resolve all the issues of clarity raised in the previous office action but
have raised additional new of clarity 112(b) as presented in the rejection above.
Conclusion
12. 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.
13. 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
Prosecution Insights