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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 10/22/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/22/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-12, 14-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bekaert (GB 1325933) in view of Gorokhovsky (US 20170030204).
Regarding Claim 1, Bekaert teaches a method for producing perforated steel strips (pg. 1 ln. 8-15) with a metallic coating (pg. 2 ln. 130), wherein metal strips are fed to and guided through a coating device in which the sheet metal strip is continuously PVD-coated with a vapor flow (pg. 1 ln. 27-43).
Bekaert teaches the vapor flow generated by heating (pg. 2 ln. 113-pg. 3 ln. 6) and does not explicitly teach a plasma evaporator generated particle vapor flow; however, plasma evaporator generated particle vapor flow for PVD of metal and non-metal coatings onto steel substrates is known in the art (Gorokhovsky, [0051], [0070]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the vapor generation of Bekaert to include plasma vapor generation, as suggested by Gorokhovsky, because it is a known method of vapor generation for PVD processes in the art and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the coating of Bekaert with a plasma generated vapor as in Gorokhovsky.
Gorokhovsky teaches varying power to achieve the desired concentration of metal ions ([0059]). Density of the particle flow is inherently controllable by the power supplied to the evaporator because no power would yield no particles while power would produce a density of particles.
Regarding Claims 3 and 5, Bekaert teaches the strip is coated with one or more layers of chromium or silicon oxide (pg. 2 ln. 130).
Regarding Claim 4, Bekaert teaches the two sides of the strip are coated with the same coating materials (pg. 1 ln. 44-56).
Regarding Claims 8-9, Bekaert teaches the vapor flow in the coating chamber is deflected onto the strip by means of mechanical guide plates (casing, upper and lower walls retain the coating material, pg. 1 ln. 51-60).
Regarding Claim 10, Bekaert teaches the arrangement ensures a coating of uniform thickness by virtue of parallel arrangement of the walls and their separation, i.e. the thickness is measured and the guide devices are controlled in such a way that a desired coating thickness and coating thickness distribution are achieved.
Regarding Claim 11, Bekaert teaches the vacuum chamber can be as small as possible to reduce the required capacity of the vacuum pump (pg. 2 ln. 7-16). Bekaert does not explicitly teach the distance between the walls of the coating chamber and the sheet; however, distance between the walls and the sheet would affect the size of the chamber and the required capacity of the vacuum pump. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select an optimum distance between the walls of the coating chamber and the sheet, in Bekaert, in order to achieve a desired minimum chamber size and vacuum pump capacity.
Regarding Claim 12, Bekaert teaches the upper and lower casing wall are parallel to one another and are spaced apart by a distance which is slightly greater than the thickness of the substrate (pg. 2 ln. 100-104). Bekaert does not explicitly teach the distance between the casing and the sheet; however, distance between casing and the sheet would affect the losses of material to be deposited. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select an optimum distance between the casing and the sheet, in Bekaert, in order to achieve a desired minimum material loss.
Regarding Claim 14, Bekaert teaches the strip is guided horizontally through the coating chamber (pg. 2 ln. 86-90).
Regarding Claim 15, Bekaert teaches the strip is guided horizontally through the coating chamber (pg. 2 ln. 86-90). The limitations of the claim are contingent on the condition of vertical travel, which is not required by the claim language. MPEP 2111.05 II.
Regarding Claim 17, Bekaert teaches the coating thickness is controlled by regulating the temperature of the material when passing through the deposition zone (pg. 3 ln. 5-11). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an optimum temperature regulation for the material passing through the deposition zone, as suggested by Bekaert, in order to achieve a desired coating thickness and in such an optimization one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed constant temperature.
Regarding Claim 18, Bekaert teaches the upper and lower walls are strongly heated with the aid of electrical heating elements in such a way that the material to be deposited sublimates and a vapor phase of the material is maintained around the surface to be coated (pg. 2 ln. 125-pg. 3 ln. 6), i.e. an external electrical circuit applying an electrical potential difference between the strip and the walls so that the local particle vapor flow can be adjusted specifically in the region around the strip to be coated.
Bekaert does not explicitly teach the electrical potential difference in the range from 10 to 500 volts; however, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the potential difference of Bekaert as suggested in the reference, in order to maintain the vapor phase of the material around the surface to be coated, and in such an optimization one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at applicant’s claimed potential difference.
Regarding Claim 19, Bekaert teaches controlling thickness by regulating speed when passing through the deposition zone (pg. 3 ln. 5-11). Both Bekaert and Gorokhovsky teach evaporation of the coating material and therefore inherently select a power suitable transform the desired amount of coating material to a gas, i.e. based on evaporation enthalpies of coating materials. Gorokhovsky teaches varying power to achieve the desired concentration of metal ions ([0059]). Gorokhovsky further teaches a selected power suitable for a given substrate area and speed in order to achieve a desired coating thickness ([0081-0082]), i.e. a power proportional to substrate speed based on surface area and desired thickness.
Claim(s) 2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bekaert (GB 1325933) in view of Gorokhovsky (US 20170030204) as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 8-12, 14-15, and 17-19 above, and further in view of Wells (GB 634217 A).
Regarding Claim 2, Bekaert is silent as to the thickness of the strip; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to related art to determine a suitable thickness. Wells teaches a perforated metal used in a protective coating process and having a thickness of 0.5 mm (pg. 2 ln. 104-105). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the thickness of the strip of Bekaert to be a thickness, as suggested by Wells, because it is a known thickness and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the product of Bakaert with a thickness as in Wells.
Regarding Claims 6-7, Bekaert is silent as to the thickness of the strip and coating and the ratio of the thickness of the coating to that of the walls of the perforations; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to related art to determine a suitable thickness and ratio. Wells teaches the wear and abrasion resistant coating is controlled such that a sufficient amount of coating is applied to reduce the aperture to the dimension required (pg. 1 ln. 23-35). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the coating of Bekaert to an optimum thickness, as suggested by Wells, in order to achieve a desirable wear and abrasion resistance and the required reduction in aperture to the dimensions required.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bekaert (GB 1325933) in view of Gorokhovsky (US 20170030204) as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 8-12, 14-15, and 17-19 above, and further in view of Punching (WO 2015156463).
Regarding Claim 13, Bekaert teaches before and after coating the material may undergo other operations in known installations which can form a unitary assembly with the apparatus according to the invention (pg. 2 ln. 41-46). Bekaert teaches the metal strip is perforated before coating (pg. 1 ln. 10-15). Bekaert does not teach the metal strip is continuously punched or perforated to produce the desired hole pattern before coating; however, continuous perforation processes are known in the art (Punching, Fig. 1 to 4, perforator 120). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the perforation of Bekaert to be a continuous perforation, as taught in Punching, because continuous perforation is known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the perforated strip of Bekaert with a continuous process.
The combined references do not explicitly teach the hole pattern is hexagonal; however, selection of a shape for the pattern such as a hexagonal hole pattern is a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant. MPEP 2144.04 I and IV. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape of the pattern of the combined references to be any shape, including the claimed shape, as a matter of design choice absent an evidentiary showing to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment and remarks, filed 3/5/2026, with respect to the previous Section 112 rejection and prior art rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as discussed above.
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 TABATHA L PENNY whose telephone number is (571)270-5512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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 Cleveland can be reached at 5712721418. 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.
/TABATHA L PENNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights