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 § 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 1-2 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites multi-pass rolling “during which a tension between the rolling mill and a coiler furnace reaches a set value” and also recites “a rolling tension between the coiler furnace and the rolling mill is in a range of 15 tons to 25 tons,” which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if “a tension” between the rolling mill and the coiler furnace is different than “a rolling tension” between the coiler furnace and rolling mill. As these tensions are both in the same area between the rolling mill and coiler furnace, these will be interpreted as referring to the same tension for the purpose of examination. Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and fails to clarify the indefinite language.
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.
Claim 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,467,519 to Tippins in view of US 2021/0379636 A1 to Itoh in further view of US 2022/0088656 A1 to Kurz in further view of US 2010/0175452 A1 to Ohlert in further view of US 2017/0348745 to Furumoto.
Tippins teaches a method for producing steel plates with a width of 2000-3100 mm (Col. 3, Lns. 4-54; the width is between 610 mm and 3050 mm) through a CVC steckel mill (Abstract: Figs. 2-3), the method comprising:
heating a steel blank in a heating furnace 42 (Figs. 2-3; Col. 6, Lns. 62-64), and descaling using a descaling machine 53 (Fig. 2; Col. 6, Lns. 64-65);
passing the heated steel blank through a rolling mill 56 (Figs. 2-3), to conduct multi-pass flat rolling and multi-pass coil rolling (Col. 7, Ln. 26 through Col. 8, Ln. 23; the rolling to flatten the blank and prepare it for coiling is performed at least four times), the multi-pass coil rolling includes linkage rolling of the rolling mill and the coiler furnace 58, 60 (Figs. 2-3; Col. 7, Ln. 32 through Col. 8. Ln. 5; after multiple flat rolling passes, the blank passes through the rollers for additional coil rolling and also passes through the coiler furnace 60), and
controlling the temperatures of the coiler furnace to a set value during the multi-pass coil rolling (Figs. 2-3; Col. 4, Lns. 49-67 and Example 1; the furnaces provide a set value of heat to achieve the desired temperature for hot rolling),
performing three or more rolling passes (Col. 7, Ln. 26 through Col. 8, Ln. 23; the flat rolling is performed four times), and
passing the steel blank through a laminar cooling system 62 to produce a steel plate (Figs. 2-3; Col. 7, Lns. 5-7).
Tippins fails to explicitly teach producing a sheet with a thickness between 4-8 mm, during the multi-pass rolling a tension between the rolling mill and a coiler furnace reaches a set value, wherein the rolling tension between the coiler furnace and the rolling mill is in a range between 15 tons and 25 tons, an axial movement amount of the working roll is changed in a last three coil rolling passes, wherein a roll bending force is increased or decreased to remove edge waves and middle portion waves of a steel blank in the multi-pass rolling process, and finishing through a hot straightening machine.
Tippins teaches a sheet with a thickness of 25 mm is rolled and depending on the number of times it passes through the rolls the thickness may be reduced as low as 1-2.5 mm (Col. 8, Lns. 2-8), thus the sheet may be anywhere from 1.0-25 mm depending on the number of passes (Col. 7, Ln. 26 through Col. 8, Ln. 8). However, Tippins does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the final sheet is between 4-8 mm. 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 thickness of the sheet produced by Tippins from between 1.0-25.0 mm to between 4-8 mm as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see Paragraph [0025] simply stating that the thickness is 4-8 mm) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Itoh teaches a method for producing plates with a thickness (Abstract) including a rolling mill 301A+B (Fig. 1) and controlling a rolling tension to reach a set value (Fig. 1; Paras. [0090]-[0092] and [0098]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Tippins to include controlling the rolling tension as taught by Itoh so that the tension during the rolling process may be set to the optimal value for the sheet being rolled each time (Itoh, Para. [0098]).
Itoh does not expressly disclose a rolling tension in a range between 15 tons and 25 tons, but teaches that the rolling tension impacts the rolling and needs to be optimized for each type of rolling and for each sheet (Para. [0098]), thus the rolling tension is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the rolling tension changes the rolling conditions which affects sheet produced by the rolling operations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of modified Tippins by making the rolling tension in a range between 15 tons and 25 tons as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Kurz teaches a method for hot rolling plates to a desired thickness (Abstract; Fig. 1) including performing three or more rolling passes (Fig. 1; Para. [0047]; the plate is rolled multiple times through the first roller stand 4 and then rolled further in roller stand 6, i.e., at least three passes) and an axial movement amount of the working roll is changed in a last three rolling passes (Paras. [0047] and [0064]-[0065]; Figs. 1 and 6-7; for each respective pass through the rollers, the adjustment to the stands are calculated to best suit the conditions of the plate including axial movement amounts of the rollers, as shown in Figs. 6 and 7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the rolling process of Tippins to include changing the axial movement amount of the working roll for each pass as taught by Kurz so that the sheet is produced without defects such as cambers or hooks (Kurz, Para. [0069]). It is noted that as the axial movement amount is being changed for each rolling pass, the axial movement amount will be changed for the last three rolling passes.
Ohlert teaches a device for producing plates with a thickness (Abstract) including a roller mill 7 (Fig. 1; Para. [0064]), a laminar cooling system 19 (Fig. 1; Para. [0069]) and a hot straightening machine 20 arranged sequentially with the cooling system 19 (Fig. 1; Para. [0069]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method for producing plates of Tippins to include a straightening machine arranged sequentially with the cooling system as taught by Ohlert so that the strip may be straightened out after it has been cooled to remove any warpage that occurs during the cooling process or remove any residual deformities in the strip before the product is coiled to finish the production process.
Furumoto teaches a method and device for producing plates with a thickness (Abstract, Fig. 3) including passing the blank through a rolling mill (Fig. 3; Para. [0064]) and a roll bending force is increased or decreased to remove edge waves and middle portion waves of a steel plate in the rolling process (Fig. 3; Paras. [0050], [0068, [0070], [0073] and [0098]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Tippins to include adjusting the roll bending force during the rolling process as taught by Furumoto so that the force of the roller may be set to a value that achieves the desired flatness of the strip being rolled (Furumoto, Paras. [0050], [0068], [0073]-[0074] and [0077]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Tippins teaches the method of claim 1 (Figs. 2-3).
Tippins fails to explicitly teach a temperature range of the coiler furnaces is controlled between 850°C and 950°C. However, Tippins teaches a temperature range of the coiler furnace 58, 60 is controlled at 1750 F, which is 954 C (Figs. 2-3; Example 1).
Tippins teaches that the temperature of the sheet during the rolling process needs to be optimized for the hot rolling process by providing additional heat sources. Col. 4, Lns. 49-67. As shown in Figs. 2-3 and discussed in Col. 7, Lns. 2-6, the coiler furnaces are an additional heat source provided after the furnace to maintain the sheet at optimal rolling temperature and as such the temperature of each of the coiler furnaces is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the temperature of the coiler furnaces changes the additional heat energy provided to the sheet to maintain the rolling temperature. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Tippins by controlling the temperature of the coiler furnaces to be between 850 and 950 C as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tippins in view of Ohlert.
Regarding claim 5, Tippins teaches a device for producing steel plates with a thickness of 4-8 mm (Col. 7, Ln. 26 through Col. 8, Ln. 8; the slab starts at 25 mm and may be reduced as small as 1.0 mm depending on the number of passes, thus the apparatus is capable of producing a slab between 4-8 mm if less than 14 passes are performed) and a width of 2000-3100 mm (Col. 3, Lns. 4-54; the width is between 610 mm and 3050 mm) through a CVC steckel mill using the method of claim 1 (Figs. 2-3; the device of Tippins is capable of performing the steps in claim 1), the device comprising:
a heating furnace 42 (Figs. 2-3; Col. 6, Lns. 62-64);
a descaling machine 53 (Fig. 2; Col. 6, Lns. 64-65);
a rolling mill 56 (Figs. 2-3; Col. 7, Lns. 2-5);
a laminar cooling system 62 (Figs. 2-3; Col. 7, Lns. 5-7);
a front coiler furnace 58 arranged at a front end of the rolling mill 56 (Figs. 2-3; Col. 7, Lns. 2-5); and
a rear coiler furnace 60 arranged at a rear end of the rolling mill 56 (Figs. 2-3; Col. 7, Lns. 2-5).
Tippins fails to explicitly teach a laminar cooling system and a hot straightening machine which are sequentially arranged. While Tippins teaches the laminar cooling system 62 (Figs. 2-3), the reference is silent about a hot straightening machine being arranged sequentially with the cooling system.
Ohlert teaches a device for producing plates with a thickness (Abstract) including a roller mill 7 (Fig. 1; Para. [0064]), a laminar cooling system 19 (Fig. 1; Para. [0069]) and a hot straightening machine 20 arranged sequentially with the cooling system 19 (Fig. 1; Para. [0069]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system for producing plates of Tippins to include a straightening machine arranged sequentially with the cooling system as taught by Ohlert so that the strip may be straightened out after it has been cooled to remove any warpage that occurs during the cooling process or remove any residual deformities in the strip before the product is coiled to finish the production process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed December 31, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2 under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. This rejection has been withdrawn. However, the amendments have introduced new 112 issues, as discussed in the indefiniteness rejection above.
Applicant's amendments and remarks with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 103 rejections, Applicant argues that Tippins fails to teach a sheet with a thickness between 4-8 mm and points to the size of the parallel strands. Remarks, PP. 5-6. This argument has been carefully considered and it is not persuasive. As discussed above, Tippins teaches providing a sheet with a thickness of 25 mm to rolling stands and that it is reduced in thickness to as low as 2.5 mm after 10 passes and 1.0 mm after fourteen passes (Col. 8, Lns. 2-8). Thus, Tippins teaches that the thickness of the sheet produced is between 1 and 25 mm depending on the number of passes, and the teachings of Tippins renders the claimed range obvious as discussed above.
Applicant further argues that Tippins and the other references fail to explicitly teach adjusting the force to counteract edge and middle portion waves. Applicant appears to also tie this into the teaching of Kurz regarding changing the axial movement of the working rolls in the last three coil rolling passes, and further asserts that the references fail to teach this feature as well. Remarks, PP. 6-7. These arguments have been carefully considered and it is not persuasive. First, it is noted that to the extent Applicant is arguing that the axial movement is required to remove the edge waves and middle portion waves or is related to the feature regarding the increasing or decreasing the bending force to remove the waves, these arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims because the axial movement and the bending force are two separate claim features. With respect to the bending force, Furumoto teaches adjusting the bending force to remove edge and middle portion waves (Paras. [0050] and [0098]), and Applicant’s arguments regarding this feature are directed to Kurz (which teaches adjusting the axial movement) rather than addressing the teaching of Furumoto which is relied upon for this feature. Regarding the axial movement, Applicant states that Kurz fails to teach any axial adjustments and only teaches adjustments to the taper, total rolling force and differential rolling force (Remarks, P. 6). Kurz teaches adjustments to the taper to move the axial ends of the rolls, as shown in Fig. 7, so that the axes of the rolls are closer or farther from each other on each end of the rolls (Para. [0065]; Fig. 7). The adjustment to the rolls to moves the axes to be closer or farther from each other are axial adjustments performed in each of the rolling passes, as recited in the claim. Accordingly, these arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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, Chris Templeton can be reached on (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.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725 /Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights