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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/862969 filed November 5, 2024. Claims 15-27 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 June 23, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the “coating unit”, “re-treatment unit”, and “rapid liquid cooling unit” in claim 15 and the “contactless anti-dripping device” in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows:
the coating unit corresponds to a roll coater or spraying unit (par. 42)
no corresponding structure can be found for the “re-treatment unit” beyond a nondescript box in the figures
the rapid liquid cooling unit corresponds to a bath, possibly preceded by liquid spray jets
no corresponding structure can be found for the “contactless anti-dripping device”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 15-18 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 limitation “a re-treatment unit” in claim 15 and “a contactless anti-dripping device” in claim 16 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Nothing in the specification describes or shows these features beyond a nondescript box for the re-treatment unit in the figures. Additionally, these terms are not found to be known, art-recognized terms that inherently convey the appropriate structure to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 17 recites “the bath being preceded, if appropriate, by liquid spray jets” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the limitation is being modified by the phrase “if appropriate”. It is unclear if this is an optional limitation or something more, and therefore renders the scope of the claim indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
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.
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.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy (FR 2640890, translation provided by Applicant on 1/28/2025 used for citation purposes) in view of Katsumori et al. WO 2014/188849, attached translation used for citation purposes).
Regarding claim 15: Roy discloses a steel sheet coating installation having a steel sheet (B) moving downwardly through a series of stations including a coating device (12) for depositing a coating liquid followed by a series of heaters (13-15) which are ovens that make up a baking or drying unit, followed by a cooling unit formed by a series of coolant spray nozzles (35) and a cooling tank filled with refrigerant (36), with no mechanical contact of the sheet (B) between the exit of the last heater (15) and the coolant spray nozzles (35) (par. 6-7, figure 2). Roy fails to explicitly disclose anything about the pressure in the system. However, this limitation is deemed to be a statement with regard to intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. In the instant case, the baking and cooling units are capable of being at a lower pressure than the coating unit. Roy still fails to explicitly disclose any airlock systems at the entrance and/or exit of the baking or drying unit or a gas injection/extraction means connected to a re-treatment unit.
However, Katsumori et al. discloses a similar sheet coating device which includes a furnace (12) downstream of the coating means (4), where the furnace (12) is provided with sealing mechanisms (28a, 28b) at the entrance and exit, which are airlock systems that are provided with an air curtain labyrinth which supplies nitrogen gas at the upstream end and suctions it at the downstream end in order to suppress the inflow of outside air into the furnace (12), the device further including an inert gas supply source (38) supplying heating gas to multiple areas of the furnace (12) and a condenser (18) which receives exhausted gas from the furnace (12) and supplies it to a second condenser (20) and thereafter a gas processing mechanism (14) which is a gas re-treatment unit that continuously treats the gas exhausted from the furnace (12). Katsumori et al. further teaches that each sealing mechanism (28a, 28b) a suction labyrinth suction chamber and an injection area having at least one nozzle for supplying the nitrogen gas on each side of the sheet (T), where part of the gas flow from the nozzles is capable of following the strip into the furnace (12) and another part is capable of being suctioned to the gas processing mechanism (14) (pages 4-5, figures 2-5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a sealing and gas management system like that of Katsumori et al. for the baking/drying unit of Roy because Katsumori et al. teaches adding these features helps significantly reduce CO2 emissions and energy consumption (page 7).
Regarding claim 17: Roy further discloses that the cooling unit includes a cooling tank with refrigerant (36) which is a bath, and that is preceded by coolant spray nozzles (35) which are liquid spray jets, further having a deflection roller (37) within the tank (36) (par. 7, figure 2).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy and Katsumori et al. as applied to claims 15 and 17 above and further in view of Wollam et al. (US 4,387,123).
Regarding claim 16: Roy and Katsumori et al. fail to explicitly disclose any sort of anti-dripping device after the coating unit. However, Wollam et al. teaches a similar strip coating apparatus which includes a drip pan (180a) below the coating unit (174) which prevents coating liquid from contaminating anything underneath it, and as such is a contactless anti-dripping device (col. 14 lines 21-48, figure 19). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a similar anti-drip tray as taught by Wollam et al. for the installation of Roy and Katsumori et al. because Wollam et al. teaches that this prevents coating liquid from interfering with other elements below it such as the rest of the part of the strip, resulting in damage or unacceptable coatings (col. 14 lines 21-48).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy and Katsumori et al. as applied to claims 15 and 17 above and further in view of Miyazaki et al. (US 5,431,179).
Regarding claim 18: Roy and Katsumori et al. teach that the function of the air curtains is to help prevent explosions from occurring within the furnace (see Katsumori et al. page 6), but fail to explicitly disclose reinforced movable valves arranged between the coating device and the entry of the baking unit so as to physically close the entry in case of fire or danger of explosion. However, Miyazaki et al. discloses a similar drying apparatus which includes shutters (24-26) that are caused to close automatically in case of a fire detected within the housing (20) of the drying apparatus (col. 5 lines 28-66, figure 3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an emergency shutter system like that of Miyazaki et al. for the installation of Roy and Katsumori et al. because Miyazaki et al. teaches that this enhances operational safety and prevents damage from the fire and/or fire-extinguishing agent outside of the housing (col. 1 lines 40-59, col. 2 lines 18-30).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
9/3/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights