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 .
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US4655166).
Regarding claim 20, Nishimura teaches that it is known to produce a steel sheet (abstract) by applying a magnetic field in the transverse direction (see Fig. 2). Nishimura fails to teach that the material starts or finishes as a rolled coil. However the examiner is taking Official Notice to inform the applicant that when providing metal strips in a format such as shown in Fig. 1 wherein treatment is provided to a longer sheet of material, it is common to provide that material in the form of a roll and to roll the material back up after treatment as this is a common and efficient way of storing rolled sheet metal in general and other materials as well that are provided in what could be considered a web format. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the material of Nishimura as a roll and roll it back up afterwards as simple combination of sheet material storage and provision means combined with an intermittent step between start of process and re-storage wherein the combination would mere provide the known material as it would commonly be stored and provided and a means of treatment wherein all that is missing is the combination. Further the combination would be predictable based upon the known storage of steel sheet material in rolls and treatment of said rolls as described.
Regarding claim 21, the teachings of Nishimura are as shown above. Nishimura fails to explicitly teaches the magnetic flux density claimed. However, Nishimura teaches that controlling the magnetic flux density directly controls the level of oscillation in the strip material as desired (col. 3, lines 19-36). Therefore, in the absence of criticality of the specific magnetic flux range of the current claims, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the magnetic flux density of Nishimura in order to control the oscillation of Nishimura at stated.
Regarding claim 22, the teachings of Nishimura are as shown above. Nishimura is silent as to the temperature at which the steel sheet is held. However, Nishimura does teach that the steel strip must be cooled and solidified before reaching the top roller likely to prevent coating defects in an unsolidified coating material (col. 2, line 67 through col. 3, line 18) wherein cooling limits the speed at which the sheet can run. Therefore, in the absence of criticality of the specific temperature range of the current claims, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the temperature of the sheet of Nishimura in order to prevent coating defects and allow for desired operation speed.
Regarding claim 23, Nishimura teaches that it is known to produce a steel sheet (abstract) by applying a magnetic field in the transverse direction (see Fig. 2). Nishimura fails to teach that the material starts or finishes as a rolled coil. However the examiner is taking Official Notice to inform the applicant that when providing metal strips in a format such as shown in Fig. 1 wherein treatment is provided to a longer sheet of material, it is common to provide that material in the form of a roll and to roll the material back up after treatment as this is a common and efficient way of storing rolled sheet metal in general and other materials as well that are provided in what could be considered a web format. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the material of Nishimura as a roll and roll it back up afterwards as simple combination of sheet material storage and provision means combined with an intermittent step between start of process and re-storage wherein the combination would mere provide the known material as it would commonly be stored and provided and a means of treatment wherein all that is missing is the combination. Further the combination would be predictable based upon the known storage of steel sheet material in rolls and treatment of said rolls as described.
Regarding claim 24, the teachings of Nishimura are as shown above. Nishimura fails to explicitly teaches the magnetic flux density claimed. However, Nishimura teaches that controlling the magnetic flux density directly controls the level of oscillation in the strip material as desired (col. 3, lines 19-36). Therefore, in the absence of criticality of the specific magnetic flux range of the current claims, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the magnetic flux density of Nishimura in order to control the oscillation of Nishimura at stated.
Regarding claim 25, the teachings of Nishimura are as shown above. Nishimura is silent as to the temperature at which the steel sheet is held. However, Nishimura does teach that the steel strip must be cooled and solidified before reaching the top roller likely to prevent coating defects in an unsolidified coating material (col. 2, line 67 through col. 3, line 18) wherein cooling limits the speed at which the sheet can run. Therefore, in the absence of criticality of the specific temperature range of the current claims, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the temperature of the sheet of Nishimura in order to prevent coating defects and allow for desired operation speed.
Claim(s) 30, 34-35 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US4655166) as applied to claims 20-25 above and further in view of Hirashima et al. (USPGPub 2020/0032364).
Regarding claim 30, the teachings of Nishimura are as shown above. Nishimura is silent as to whether or not the steel is hot-roller or cold rolled. However, Hirashima teaches that it is known to specifically galvanize both hot and cold rolled steel sheets [0071]. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the generic steel sheet of Nishimura with the hot-rolled or cold rolled sheet of Hirashima as a simple substitution of one steel sheet to be galvanized for another wherein the results of said substitution would have been predictable based upon the teachings of Hirashima that both are suited for the similar treatments of Nishimura.
Regarding claim 34, Hirashima further teaches wherein the product sheet has a tensile strength in the range claimed [0082].
Regarding claim 35, Hirashima teaches wherein the steel has a chemical composition meeting the current claim limitations [0032-0046].
Regarding claim 39, Hirashima teaches wherein the diffusible hydrogen content in the steel is in the claimed range [0067].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 5:00AM-11:00AM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ANDREW J BOWMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights