DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to communication received on 12/30/24.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of AIA 35 U.S.C. code not present in this action can be found in previous office actions dated 2/25/26.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/25/26.
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 17 and 19 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.
As for claim 17, as currently written it contains two formulas that are formatted in such a way as they are illegible on the claim set. There are previous claims sets where the formula is legible but the amended claim set has new formatting that has resulted in an illegible text for the formula. As such it is unclear what the formulas actually say.
Appropriate correction is required.
As for claim 19, it contains the limitation of adjust the absolute humidity (f) such that the conduction is fulfilled during the application of blowing off of the layer (10): f >AWZ. However, Examiner notes that (f) is not a measure of absolute humidity in the independent claim 16 from which claim 19 depends. Within claim 16, (f) is the absolute local humidity and it is defined as different from the surrounding air humidity (fUG). As such it appears that claim 19 is attempting to define a new value using a previously defined symbol, or claim 19 is not properly referring to the symbol with its designation and definition. Either way, appropriate correction is required.
Reasons for Allowance and Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 and 18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the independent claim 16 contains the following limitations which is not taught nor suggested by the prior art on record:
a stripping efficiency
(AWZ) being defined by the following parameters:
d thickness (d) of the nozzle lip gap (17) of the gas nozzle (15) of the stripping nozzle device (14),
D over the strip width (w) effective flow rate (quantity) (D) of the gas (G) per side of the flat steel product (100) in Nm3/h,
w strip width of the flat steel product (100) in mm,
2b half-width of the pressure distribution of the gas (G) at the flat steel product (100) in mm,
v strip speed in m/min, at which the flat steel product (100) is moved along the stripping nozzle device (14),
wherein the method comprises the following steps:
- determining the absolute local humidity (f) in a controlled water vapor atmosphere in a close range (NB) at the front and/or rear side of the flat steel product (100) and/or the surrounding air humidity (fUG) before carrying out the method and/or during carrying out the method,
- relating the determined humidity (f,fUG) to the stripping efficiency (AWZ) to determine whether the condition/> AWZ or fUG > AWZ is fulfilled,
- if the condition is fulfilled, initializing or continuing the method for applying the layer (10), or if the condition is not fulfilled, increasing the absolute local humidity (f) in the controlled water vapor atmosphere by using a water vapor device (50) adapted to emit gaseous water vapor so as to achieve the fulfilling of the condition f > AWZ, to then initialize or continue the method for applying the layer.
The closest prior art on record id Sohn et al. US PGPub 2021/0010123 hereinafter SOHN which teaches “a plated steel material” (abstract, line 1), with “A composition of the zinc alloy plating layer is not particularly limited, but as a preferred example, may include, by weight, Mg: 0.5 to 3.5%, Al: 0.5 to 20.0%, Zn as a residual component and inevitable impurities” (paragraph 19). It goes on to teach a wiping nozzle, called an air knife, that is used to adjust the thickness of the layer and describes the conditions of operating and controlling that wiping nozzle/air knife which considers the pressure of the wiping gas, the distance between the wiping nozzle and the plated steel material, the thickness of the wiping nozzle, the velocity of the passing steel material and the Temperature of the plating bath, as well as the cooling rate in a separate formula (see paragraphs 40-44).
SOHN is entirely silent on the humidity and how the humidity can affect the control of an air knife being used on the surface of the plated steel material as it exits the alloying bath. Thus, the claim limitations relating on how to control and adjust the system based on humidity is not taught nor suggested by the prior art one record.
Conclusion
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN A DAGENAIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1114. The examiner can normally be reached 8-12 and 1-5.
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.
/KRISTEN A DAGENAIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights