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 .
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.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 6235410) in view of Takeda et al. (EP 3623492).
As to claim 10, Komatsu et al. discloses a method for producing a hot dip An-Al-Mg coated flat steel product having improved surface appearance. Komatsu et al. immerses a steel strip in a Zn-Al-Mg hot dip plating bath and moves the strip out of the bath. A wiping gas for regulating the amount of plating is blown from wiping nozzles onto the surface of the steel sheet after it is removed from the bath. Komatsu states that the wiping nozzles extend in the widthwise direction of the steel sheet and uniformly blows gas over the width of the sheet to reduce the layer to a desired thickness (see Fig. 12,col. 15, line 25-29).
PNG
media_image1.png
568
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to the limitation of avoiding marbling and/.or toothpick defects, Komastsu et al. does not use the terms “marbling” or “toothpick”, however, Komatsu et al. establishes that Zn-Al-Mg coatings were known to exhibit undesirable line-like surface appearance patterns associated with the morphology of an Mg containing surface oxide film and that the composition of the wiping gas affects the resulting surface appearance. Komatsu et al. teaches controlling the wiping gas composition to mitigate the pattern to show no appearance of defects and uses a steam containing wiping gas having the moisture range overlapping the claimed range.
Komatsu et al. further teaches that the composition of the gas discharged from the nozzles affects the surface appearance of the Zn-Al-Mg coating. Komatsu discusses line-like stripe pattern associated with the morphology of the Mg containing oxide film formed on the coating surface and determines that control of the wiping gas composition can mitigate the line-like pattern to a degree so the coating doesn’t have an appearance problem (see abstract, col. 1, line 60 – col. 2, line 26, col. 12, line 53- col. 13, line 58). In example 9, Komatsu et al. uses waste combustion gas as the wiping gas and varies the composition of the wiping gas. The wiping gas contains 0.3-10 vol.% carbon dioxide and 1.5-5.3 vol. % steam (about 15,000 – 53,000 ppm) and the plated steel has no appearance defects under the wiping conditions. Example 10 further teaches that the waste combustion gas is blown from the wiping nozzles positioned inside a sealed box (see col. 26, line 24 – col. 27, line 59)..
Komatsu et al. fails to expressly teach generating the steam-containing stripping gas by separately providing a dry gas stream and water-vapor containing gas, combining the streams to obtain the stripping gas as a mixture, and determining the humidity of the resulting stripping gas as required by claim 8.
Takeda teaches providing controlled dry gas and humidified gas in a continuous hot dip galvanizing process. The gas distribution device (24 of Fig.2) divides a reducing or non-oxidizing dry gas such that part of the dry gas is fed into humidifying device (26 of Fig2.) while the remaining part continues through dry gas pipe (32 of Fig.2). The dry gas flows on one side of the water-permeable membrane while pure water maintained at a predetermined temperature circulates on the other side. Water molecules pass through the membrane into the dry gas, thereby introducing water vapor into the gas and forming a controlled humidified gas. Takeda teaches that this arrangement humidifies the dry gas to a selected dew point and achieves highly accurate dew point control (see 0033).
Takeda further teaches humidified gas flowmeter (38 of Fig.) and humidified gas dew point meter (40 of Fig.) with the dew point meter located upstream of the humidified gas supply ports so that the actual moisture condition of the gas being supplied can be determined. Takeda teaches that the humidified gas can be controlled to a dew point of 5C to 50C (see 0032-0033).
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 gas supply used in Komatsu et al. by using Takeda’s controlled humidification and humidity determination technique to provide Komatsu et al. steam containing wiping gas, in order to obtain measurable control over the moisture content of the wiping gas. One would have been motivated to do so since Komatsu et al. teaches why control of the wiping gas composition is significant to suppress the line-like surface pattern associated with Mg-containing oxide film from forming and Takeda teaches an operable method of forming water vapor into a dry carrier/wiping gas and monitoring the water-vapor concentration of the wiping gas stream.
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). The pipe is heated/heat retained to not be less than the dew point of the humidified gas and not less than tha the external air temperature (see 0032). Takeda et al. teaches the dew point is controlled by adjusting the gas composition and that the temperature 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 within the system.
As to claim 10, Takeda et al. teaches a dew point of 0 – 30C which overlaps the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest supplying the gaseous water vapor gas only if the surrounding exit side of the melt bath has an air humidity which is lower than a predetermined value as claimed.
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 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