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 .
Response to Amendment
This Final Rejection is in response to the Amendment dated January 22, 2026 filed in response to the last Non-final Rejection dated November 12, 2025.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection in the last Non-final Rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendments made to the claims. However, the claims are unpatentable over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103 as explained below.
Response to Arguments
Starting on page 4 of the Amendment, Applicant argues Fapiano (U.S. Patent No. 3,630,055) does not anticipate claims 1 and 2 as amended. To the extent Fapiano does not go into the level of detail necessary to anticipate the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102, Examiner agrees. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection in the last Office action is withdrawn. However, as Examiner stated in the referenced interview, the prior art is replete with references teaching the claimed detail. The rejection below cites one of those references.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 3,630,055 to Fapiano, hereinafter “Fapiano”, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0178443 A1 by Frenzel et al., hereinafter “Frenzel”.
Regarding claim 1, Fapiano discloses a method for shape control in a rolling mill (see the abstract), the method comprising:
a measurement step of measuring a shape in a width direction of a steel sheet on a delivery side of the rolling mill, the shape in the width direction being a shape along edge portions and a center portion of the steel sheet (Fig. 1 shows flatness monitor 44 measuring the flatness of metal sheet plate exiting finishing rolling mill 24 in the width direction. Col. 4, line 20-23 discloses flatness monitor 44 determines whether the shape in the width direction has wavy edges or a buckled center.); and
a control step of controlling the rolling mill in a manner that the shape in the width direction of the steel sheet falls within an allowable range, based on the shape in the width direction of the steel sheet measured at the measurement step (Col. 11, line 53-67 discloses rolling mill 24 is controlled by the illustrated flatness monitor device 44 which changes the roll pass schedule to achieve the target crown of the steel sheet in the width direction), such that the edge portions and the center portion in the width direction have a first shape while intermediate portions between the edge portions and the center portion have a second, different shape (col. 1, line 17-22, col. 2, line 1-21 and col. 4, line 15-23 disclose the shape of the sheet in the width direction is separated into at least three sections: a center “crown” portion, edge portions, and portions on either side of the crown connecting the crown to the edge portions. The portions on either side of the crown portion connecting the crown portion to the edge portions may reasonably be interpreted as “intermediate portions” because they are intermediate the crown portion and the edge portions. Plate which has a positive or negative crown would have intermediate portions of a different shape than that of the center portion and edge portions in that the shape of the intermediate portions would include transitional areas where the shape transitions into the center portion or edge portions from the intermediate portions. Thus the shape of the intermediate portions would be different from that of the center portion and the edge portions.), wherein
the control step includes:
setting a control gain of an actuator configured to control the shape in the width direction of the steel sheet to a first value when the steel sheet as a target for rolling has a width equal to or smaller than 1,200mm (Fig. 1 shows actuator screwdown control 36 controls the force control gain of rolling mill 24. See col. 4, line 38-47. Fig. 3 shows the force multiplier used in the disclosed method drops as the width of the plate increases. The force control gain at a width of 1,200mm (approximately 47 inches) is approximately 4.), and
setting the control gain of the actuator to a second value that is smaller than the first value when the steel sheet as the target for rolling has the width greater than 1,200mm, and the actuator is provided in a rolling stand configured to roll the steel sheet (Fig. 3 shows the force control gain multiplier substantially drops in the plate width range of 40 inches to 60 inches which is equivalent to 1,016mm to 1,524mm. Thus, the force control gain is set to a second, smaller value when the width of the metal plate increases above 1,200mm.).
Fapiano does not go into the level of detail necessary to outright anticipate on its own, under 35 U.S.C. 102, the limitations amended into claim 1 relating to the cross-sectional shape of the steel sheet, namely: “the first shape of the edge portions and the center portion is an elongated shape, and the second shape of the intermediate portions is a stretched shape”.
However, in the same field of steel sheet shape control, Frenzel teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the contours of the cross-sectional shape of a steel sheet by measuring. See at least paragraphs [0013] through [0035]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of Frenzel to the method disclosed by Fapiano by using Fapiano’s method to achieve the predictable result of controlling the cross-sectional contours of the steel sheet such that the resulting steel sheet would have edge portions and a center portion of elongated shape and the intermediate portions would have a stretched shape.
Regarding claim 2, Fapiano discloses a device for shape control in a rolling mill (Fig. 1), comprising:
a measurement unit configured to measure a shape in the width direction of a steel sheet on a delivery side of the rolling mill, the shape in the width direction being a shape along edge portions and a center portion of the steel sheet (Measurement unit flatness monitor 44 in Fig. 1 measures the flatness the steel sheet in the width direction. Col. 4, line 202-3 discloses the monitor determines whether the shape in the width direction has wavy edges or a buckled center.); and
a control unit (control unit computer 46 in Fig. 1) configured to control the rolling mill in a manner that the shape in the width direction of the steel sheet falls within an allowable range, based on the shape in the width direction of the steel sheet measured by the measurement unit (Fig. 1 shows control unit computer 46 controls rolling mill 24 based upon flatness measurements taken by flatness monitor 44 in the width direction of the steel sheet), such that the edge portions and the center portion in the width direction have a first shape while intermediate portions between the edge portions and the center portion have a second, different shape (col. 1, line 17-22, col. 2, line 1-21 and col. 4, line 15-23 disclose the shape of the sheet in the width direction is separated into at least three sections: a center “crown” portion, edge portions, and portions on either side of the crown connecting the crown to the edge portions. The portions on either side of the crown portion connecting the crown portion to the edge portions may reasonably be interpreted as “intermediate portions” because they are intermediate the crown portion and the edge portions. Plate which has a positive or negative crown would have intermediate portions of a different shape than that of the center portion and edge portions in that the shape of the intermediate portions would include transitional areas where the shape transitions into the center portion or edge portions from the intermediate portions. Thus the shape of the intermediate portions would be different from that of the center portion and the edge portions.), wherein
the control unit is configured to
set a control gain of an actuator configured to control the shape in the width direction of the steel sheet to a first value when the steel sheet as a target for rolling has a width equal to or smaller than 1200mm (computer 46 sets the control gain force of screwdown control 36 based upon the force control multiplier curve shown in Fig. 3 which shows a multiplier of approximately 4 is used for sheet having a width of 1,200mm), and
set the control gain of the actuator to a second value that is smaller than the first value when the steel sheet as the target for rolling has the width greater than 1200mm, and the actuator is provided in a rolling stand configured to roll the steel sheet (screwdown control 36 in rolling mill stand 24 in Fig. 1 sets the control gain force based upon the force control multiplier curve shown in Fig. 3 which shows the multiplier is set to a smaller number when the width of the sheet is greater than 1,200mm).
Fapiano does not go into the level of detail necessary to outright anticipate on its own, under 35 U.S.C. 102, the limitations amended into claim 2 relating to the cross-sectional shape of the steel sheet, namely: “the first shape of the edge portions and the center portion is an elongated shape, and the second shape of the intermediate portions is a stretched shape”.
However, in the same field of steel sheet shape control, Frenzel teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the contours of the cross-sectional shape of a steel sheet by measuring. See at least paragraphs [0013] through [0035]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of Frenzel to the method disclosed by Fapiano by using Fapiano’s method to achieve the predictable result of controlling the cross-sectional contours of the steel sheet such that the resulting steel sheet would have edge portions and a center portion of elongated shape and the intermediate portions would have a stretched shape.
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 PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/P DEREK PRESSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725