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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 03/25/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: “The” should be inserted into the claims before the word “Method” (The method according to claim 8, …). 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 8-11 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation a moisture content … which is greater than 200ppm and less than 43700 ppm, and the claim also recites the moisture content is preferably in the range 500 ppm to 9980 ppm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation a dew point which is greater than -39 and less than +30C, and the claim also recites the dew point is preferably in the range between -29C and +7C which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 9 and 11 are included in the rejection since they depend from claim 8.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation a dew point that is greater than -39C and less than +30C , and the claim also recites the dew point is preferably in the range -29C to +7C if the temperature of the stripping gas stream is in the range of 10 to 30C which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitch et al. (US 4557952) in view of Pierson et al. (US 4330574) and Takeda et al. (EP 3623492).
As to claim 8, Mitch et al. discloses a process comprising coating a front and rear side of a ferrous base metal strip (see abstract). The process comprises moving the flat sheet form an input side to an exit side of a zinc based metal (see col. 5, lines 16-24) and discharging a gas on the front side and back side of the flat strip (see 5 of Fig. 1). The discharged gas is used to remove excess coating and “edge berries” (bits of dross on the edges of the strip – see col. 1, line 65 – col.2, line 30). Mitch et al. further teaches the importance of controlling the atmosphere within the coating chamber to have 1-3% water vapor ( about 10000-30000 ppm and dew point of 50-75F (about 10C – 23.9 C see col. 4, lines 45-49 and col. 7, lines 36-65) by providing a wet gas through nozzles (see 9 of Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
504
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mitch et al. fails to teach the discharged gas is formed by mixing a water vapor gas and a dry gas stream or that the gas meets the conditions B1 or B2 as required by claim 8.
Pierson et al. discloses a process for hot dipping a ferrous base metal strip into a molten coating bath (zinc, zinc alloys, aluminum – see claim 2) and finishing the metal strip by blowing both sides of the coated metal strip with a gas as it exits the bath (see Fig. 2, col. 8, lines 60-61). The finishing process minimizes spangling, and enhances uniformity of the coating on the strip (see col. 5, lines 20-25). Pierson et al. further states the nozzles can be used to control the atmosphere (see col. 9, lines 20-22).
PNG
media_image2.png
658
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Mitch et al. to include discharging the water vapor through the finishing nozzles as taught by Pierson et al. Pierson et al. teaches the finishing nozzles can be used an alternative to using an additional opening to maintain the desired atmosphere within the finishing area. It has been established that the mere substitution of one known alternative for another provides predictable results.
As to the mixing of a dry and wet gas to provide the gas having the desired water vapor content, Takeda et al. discloses controlling an atmosphere within a galvanizing process by supplying both a dry gas and humidified gas and adjusting their relative proportions to achieve a desired dew point. Takeda et al. further teaches the gasses ae combined to form a mixture having controlled moisture content, and that the dew point is monitored and regulated (see 0025, 0028, 0031).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Mitch modified by Pierson et al. above to include forming the atmosphere containing the water vapor by mixing a dry and wet gas as taught by Takeda et al. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to supplying a water vapor to a galvanizing process, where Takeda et al. further teaches an operable method of provided the water vapor and controlling/monitoring the moisture content and dew point, which are known to influence oxidation behavior and surface quality.
As to claim 9, Takeda et al. states that dew condensation can enter into the furnace if the dew point of the humidified gas is higher than the pipe temperature (see 0032). Takeda et al. states the pipe is heated/heat retained to not be less than the dew pint of the humidified gas and not less than the external air temperature (see 0032). Takeda et al. teaches the dew point is controlled by adjusting gas composition and that temperatures below the dew point results in condensation, therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to regulate the proportions to achieve a dew point that is lower than its temperature in order to avoid condensation to occur within the system.
As to claim 10, the dew point is about 10C – 23.9 C (see col. 4, lines 45-49 of Mitch).
As to claim 11, Mitch states if the water vapor is below 1%, zinc leakage into the surrounding environment will occur, and if the value is above 3%m dross formation can occur on the surface of the molten zinc in the chamber and “edge berries” can occur. Mitch shows the amount of water is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to ensure the water vapor levels are maintained within the desired range to only provide the water vapor when the values are less than the 1-3% desired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mayhew (US 3148080) discloses a process for galvanizing a metal product. The metal product is introduced into a hot dipping bath of molten metal and then treated with wet steam after it exits the bath in order to freezes the coating and forms a bright, smooth galvanized strip (see col. 1, lines 41-44 60 – col. 2, line 3, lines 30-53; see Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
650
572
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cachet I Proctor whose telephone number is (571)272-0691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 pm.
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 571-272-1418. 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.
/CACHET I. PROCTOR/
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/CACHET I PROCTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights