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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments/ Status of Claims
An amendment, filed 02/17/2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
Claim 6 has been amended, amendment finds supports in the instant specification.
Claim 1-5 and 8-10 are withdrawn.
Therefore, claims 6-7 and 11 are currently under consideration for this office action.
Status of Previous Rejections
The previous 35 USC § 102(a)(1) rejections of the claims 6-7 and 11 have been withdrawn.
The previous alternative 35 USC § 102(a)(1) rejections of the claims 6-7 and 11 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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.
Claim 6-7, and 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.
Claim 6, recites the phrase “a detection device that detects a position in a longitudinal direction of a steel sheet to identify a leading end and/or a tail end of the steel sheet” and the claim further recites “the control unit controls the heating device based on the identified position in a longitudinal direction from the detection device”, however, it is not clear what is the detection device or how it is connected to the control unit or heating device or how does it perform, neither the claim nor the specification describes how the detection device detects a position and how provides information/output about the position to the control unit, and/or where the detection device is located, or which kind of physical structure detection devices has to detect or identify, like any sensor, scanner or any other recognizable devices that a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize as a device for recognizing or identifying or detecting any position. Therefore, it is not clear how the detection device is identifying a position of a leading end and/or a tail end of the steel sheet, and how the identified position in a longitudinal direction from the detection device is being used to adjust the biting temperature. It is further unclear, as there are only two paragraphs in the instant specification that describes the detection device, in paragraph, [0013], “manufacturing line further comprises a detection device that detects a position in a longitudinal direction, …….”, which is similar as claimed in the instant claim, and paragraph [0042] describes “a detection device that detects the position in the longitudinal direction of the coil”, therefore, there is an ambiguity whether the detection device detects the position in the longitudinal direction of the steel sheet or the coil, additionally, none of these paragraph describes how the leading and/or trail end position are being identified by the detection device.
Claim 6, recites the phrase “the identified position” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6, further recites the phrase “a stationary portion” in line 9, renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear which portion of the steel is a stationary portion of the steel. The claim also recites the leading and/or trail end, which means the steel sheet is leading towards the work roll, i.e. moving, which is opposite of stationary then how a moving steel would have a stationary portion. Any portion of the steel other than the leading and/or tail end will be interpreted as a stationary portion of the steel sheet for the examination purpose.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 7 and 11 are dependent on claim 6 and therefore, are rejected for the same reason mentioned above.
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.
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.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima Suguhiro et.al. [JP2018051576A] (Text form the Machine translation and Figures from the original document).
Regarding Claim 6, Suguhiro teaches a manufacturing line comprising a heating device and a tandem mill (Suguhiro’s FIG. 1 shows the manufacturing facility 1 includes a hot finishing mill train 10, a heating device 20) [Section 0015], wherein the manufacturing line further comprises a detection device that detects a position in a longitudinal direction of a steel sheet to identify a leading end and/or a tail end of the steel sheet, and a control unit of the heating device (the heating device 20 is applied to the rolling by the first stand 11, the rough bar that has passed through the descaling device 30 is heated by the heating device 20 before it reaches the work roll of the first stand 11 [Section 0040] and the temperature distribution on the steel plate is measured by measuring the surface temperature of the steel plate using a radiation thermometer (the device radiation thermometer of Sugihiro is interpreted as being capable of performing the detection as presently claimed detection device, as this is measuring the surface temperature of the steel plate), and the internal temperature is calculated by a heat conduction simulation) [Section 0044]. According to this teaching of Suguhiro, the rough bar before it reaches the work roll of the first stand 11, reads on leading end of the steel sheet in a work roll, as it approaches towards the roll.
Suguhiro then teaches the control unit controls the heating device based on the identified position in a longitudinal direction from the detection device to adjust a biting temperature of a work roll of at least one stand of the tandem mill (The induction heating coil 21 is controlled by the control means 22 (control unit) heats the surface portion (an identified position) of the steel sheet S to a temperature 50°C or more, higher than that of the center portion of the sheet thickness when the portion to be rolled of the steel sheet S is bitten into the work roll 10b of the first stand 11 [Section 0041]. When the temperature difference between the surface layer temperature and the thickness center temperature at the outlet of the induction heating coil of the rolling target portion of the steel plate is X (°C), and the time taken for the steel plate to pass from the outlet of the induction heating coil 21 of the heating device 20 to the work roll 10b of the first stand 10b is Y (seconds), Y is set to be 0.2 seconds or more and 4.0 seconds or less, and heating is performed so as to satisfy X≧40+28·Y [Section 0042]. The surface of a steel sheet is heated by an induction heating device just before the first stand of a hot finishing mill. The temperature distribution on the steel plate is measured by measuring the surface temperature of the steel plate using a radiation thermometer (detection device), and the internal temperature is calculated by a heat conduction simulation) [Section 0044].
PNG
media_image1.png
566
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to the limitation, “a temperature at which the leading end and/or the tail end is bitten by the work roll is higher than a temperature at which a stationary portion of the steel sheet is bitten by the work roll”, it should be noted that as this limitation is presently claimed, the control unit of Suguhiro is interpreted as being capable of performing the claimed intended use, as shown above, Suguhiro teaches higher temperature at the surface layer just before it reaches to the first work roll (similar to leading end) and Suguhiro further teaches the temperature difference between the temperature of the surface layer and the temperature at the center of the plate thickness (other portion of the sheet can be treated as stationary portion) when the portion of the steel plate to be rolled is bitten by the work rolls and is calculated by performing a temperature simulation using the temperature measurement results of the material surface just before biting (biting temperature), and calculating the difference between the calculated surface temperature and internal temperature at the time of biting Y was calculated based on the distance between the heating device and the rolling mill, and the sheet passing speed at the inlet side of the rolling mill [Section 0045]. As because Suguhiro teaches a heating device to control and to adjust a biting temperature of a work roll of at least one stand of the tandem mill, in an longitudinal portion (surface of the steel sheet just before enters the work roll), which is higher than another portions of the steel sheet, therefore, it would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art, that Suguhiro’s apparatus would be capable of performing claimed functions, i.e. adjusting a biting temperature of a work roll of at least one stand of the tandem mill such that a temperature at which the leading end and/or the tail end is bitten by the work roll is higher than a temperature at which a stationary portion of the steel sheet is bitten by the work roll.
Regarding Claim 7, all the above discussions regarding claim 6 is applicable to claim 7 in addition, Suguhiro teaches heating device utilizes any one of induction heating, electrical resistance heating, or infrared heating (a heating device having a solenoid-type induction heating coil, is used to selectively heat the surface layer of the portion of the steel plate to be rolled) [Section 0028].
Claims 6-7 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoki Shimoda et.al. [US10710133B2] (PCT filing date: Mar. 26, 2015, PCT Pub. Date: Sep. 29, 2016).
Regarding Claim 6, Shimoda discloses a manufacturing line (a rolling system 20 shown in FIG. 1) comprising a heating device (an edge heater 7) and a tandem mill (a finishing mill 10) , wherein the manufacturing line further comprises a detection device (thermometers 5, 6, 11 and 13 of Shimoda is interpreted as being capable of performing the detection as presently claimed detection device, as this is measuring the surface temperature of the steel plate and located at different position in the line of FIG.1) that detects a position in a longitudinal direction of a steel sheet ( a steel plate to be hot-rolled by the rolling system 20 is conveyed in a longitudinal direction of the steel plate) and a control unit of the heating device (a controller 100) [Col. 3, line 43-54, FIG.1 ]. Shimoda teaches the control unit controls the heating device based on an information of position in a longitudinal direction from the detection device to adjust a biting temperature of a work roll of at least one stand of the tandem mill (The controller 100 is connected to the rolling system 20 includes an element dividing unit 100a, a temperature calculating unit 100b, and an edge heater control unit 100c. The element dividing unit 100a executes a step of dividing a position, a longitudinal direction of a steel plate to be hot rolled by the rolling system 20 into a plurality of rectangular elements for temperature calculation. The temperature calculating unit 100b executes a step of calculating, using a finite difference method. The edge heater control unit 100c executes a step of controlling power of the edge heater 7 or an amount of applied heat by the edge heater 7 based on a calculation result of the temperature calculating unit 100b. Furthermore, the controller 100 calculate or control various amounts of the rolling process using a calculation result of the temperature calculating unit 100b ) [Col. 4, line 50-67, Col. 5, line 1-5 FIG.1 ]. Shimoda also teaches calculating amounts of frictional heat, thermal conduction in rolling roll bite and heat difference between the steel surface and the roll inside roll bites of the roughing mill 4 and the finishing mill 10. Amounts of frictional heat in the rolling roll bite and amounts of thermal conduction to a roll in the
PNG
media_image2.png
464
622
media_image2.png
Greyscale
rolling roll bite is calculated using temperatures, thermal conductivity [Col. 11, line 50-67, Col. 5, line 1-5 FIG.1 ]. An amount of heat generated by processing in the rolling roll bite is calculated using an amount of rolling reduction, material deformation resistance etc. [Col. 12, line 1-5, FIG.1 ]. Shimoda also teaches a finite difference method, the temperature calculating unit 100b calculates a heat balance, an amount of temperature variation, and accordingly, the temperature calculating unit 100b calculate the temperature of each rectangular element in each time step of each time increment from start to calculation to end of calculation [Col. 15, line 14-17]. Shimoda further teaches the temperature calculating unit 100b correct a calculation result based on a surface temperature of the steel plate measured by the first thermometer 5, the second thermometer 6, the third thermometer 11, or the fourth thermometer 13 [Col. 15, line 43-45].
With respect to the limitation, “a temperature at which the leading end and/or the tail end is bitten by the work roll is higher than a temperature at which a stationary portion of the steel sheet is bitten by the work roll”, it should be noted that as this limitation is presently claimed, the control unit of Shimoda is interpreted as being capable of performing the claimed intended use, as shown Shimoda’s teachings above, as Shimoda teaches a plurality of detection device (first thermometer 5, the second thermometer 6, the third thermometer 11, or the fourth thermometer 13) and heating device to control and to adjust a biting temperature of a work roll at different longitudinal position of the steel sheet, based on the information at the different longitudinal position of the steel sheet, therefore, it would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art, that Shimoda’s apparatus would be capable of performing claimed functions, i.e. adjusting a biting temperature of a work roll of at least one stand of the tandem mill such that a temperature at which the leading end and/or the tail end is bitten by the work roll is higher than a temperature at which a stationary portion of the steel sheet is bitten by the work roll.
Regarding Claim 7, all the above discussions regarding claim 6 is applicable to claim 7 in addition, Shimada’s edge heater 7 heats an edge part extending in the longitudinal direction of the steel plate by induction heating [Col. 4, line 7-15].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima Suguhiro et.al. [JP2018051576A] (Text form the Machine translation and Figures from the original document) as applied to claim 6 and further in view of Ueno Masayasu et.al. [JP2011224594A] (Text form the Machine translation and Figures from the original document).
Regarding claims 11, all the above discussions regarding claim 6 are applicable to claim 11, Suguhiro is silent about the steel sheet is hot-rolled and annealed steel sheet.
However, Masayasu discloses cold rolling requires the use of coolant for lubrication and cooling of the rolls. Therefore, even the steel sheet S is heated by the induction heating device 6 at the entry side of the rolling mill 7, the temperature of the steel sheet S is reduced before it is bitten into the rolling mill 7 due to cooling by the coolant. Therefore, in order to prevent edge cracks at the edges of the steel plate S, it is necessary to take into account the temperature drop due to coolant cooling in advance and control the amount of heating by the induction heating device 6 so that the temperature remains above the ductile-brittle transition temperature even after cooling. [Section 0016]. Ueno’s material to be rolled is hot-rolled and annealed steel sheet (a hot-rolled steel sheet having a and have been homogenized at 1000°C) [Section 0021].
Masayasu’s teaching is in the field of cold rolling of the hot-rolled and annealed steel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to combine Suguhiro’s and Masayasu’s teachings for controlling and adjusting the temperature drop due to coolant cooling in advance and control the amount of heating by the induction heating device so that the temperature remains above the ductile-brittle transition temperature.
Claim 11 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoki Shimoda et.al. [US10710133B2] (PCT filing date: Mar. 26, 2015, PCT Pub. Date: Sep. 29, 2016) as applied to claim 6 and further in view of Ueno Masayasu et.al. [JP2011224594A] (Text form the Machine translation and Figures from the original document).
Regarding claims 11, all the above discussions regarding claim 6 are applicable to claim 11, Shimoda is silent about the steel sheet is hot-rolled and annealed steel sheet.
However, Masayasu discloses cold rolling requires the use of coolant for lubrication and cooling of the rolls. Therefore, even the steel sheet S is heated by the induction heating device 6 at the entry side of the rolling mill 7, the temperature of the steel sheet S is reduced before it is bitten into the rolling mill 7 due to cooling by the coolant. Therefore, in order to prevent edge cracks at the edges of the steel plate S, it is necessary to take into account the temperature drop due to coolant cooling in advance and control the amount of heating by the induction heating device 6 so that the temperature remains above the ductile-brittle transition temperature even after cooling. [Section 0016]. Ueno’s material to be rolled is hot-rolled and annealed steel sheet (a hot-rolled steel sheet having a and have been homogenized at 1000°C) [Section 0021].
Masayasu’s teaching is in the field of cold rolling of the hot-rolled and annealed steel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to combine Shimoda’s and Masayasu’s teachings for controlling and adjusting the temperature drop due to coolant cooling in advance and control the amount of heating by the induction heating device so that the temperature remains above the ductile-brittle transition temperature.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 09/02/2025, with respect to the previous 35 USC § 102 rejections of the claims 6-7 have been maintained as because, the amendment does not overcome the previous rejection and Applicant’s argument does not seem persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument about “Crucially, Suguhiro does not disclose identifying the leading or tail ends for the purpose of heating them differently than the stationary (middle) portion. Suguhiro aims for load reduction generally. It contains no teaching of the claimed control logic: intentionally heating the ends higher than the stationary portion to correct texture heterogeneity.”, does not seem persuasive because, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies ((middle) portion, the claimed control logic: intentionally heating the ends higher than the stationary portion to correct texture heterogeneity) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, claim does not recite, any middle potions, claim recites stationary portion but does not define what the stationary portion is, claim does not recite any control logic and does not recite any correction of texture heterogeneity, the claim is directed to a manufacturing line further comprises a detection device that detects a position m a longitudinal direction of a steel sheet to identify a leading end and/or a tail end of the steel sheet, and a control unit of the heating device, and the control unit controls the heating device based on of the identified position in a longitudinal direction from the detection device to adjust a biting temperature of a work roll of at least one stand of the tandem mill such that a temperature at which the leading end and/or the tail end is bitten by the work roll is higher than a temperature at which a stationary portion of the steel sheet is bitten by the work roll. As shown above in the rejection section, Suguhiro teaches higher temperature at the surface layer of the steel plate just before it reaches to the first work roll (leading end) and Suguhiro further teaches the temperature difference between the temperature of the surface layer and the temperature at the center of the plate thickness (other portion of the sheet interpreted as the stationary portion) when the portion of the steel plate to be rolled is bitten by the work rolls and is calculated by performing a temperature simulation using the temperature measurement results of the material surface just before biting (biting temperature), and calculating the difference between the calculated surface temperature and internal temperature at the time of biting Y was calculated based on the distance between the heating device and the rolling mill, and the sheet passing speed at the inlet side of the rolling mill [Section 0045]. As because Suguhiro teaches a heating device to control and to adjust a biting temperature of a work roll of at least one stand of the tandem mill, in an longitudinal portion (surface of the steel sheet just before enters the work roll), which is higher than another portions of the steel sheet, therefore, it would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art, that Suguhiro’s apparatus would be capable of adjusting a biting temperature of a work roll of at least one stand of the tandem mill such that a temperature at which the leading end and/or the tail end is bitten by the work roll is higher than a temperature at which a stationary portion of the steel sheet is bitten by the work roll.
With respect to Applicant’s argument about “Suguhiro aims for load reduction generally. It contains no teaching of the claimed control logic: intentionally heating the ends higher than the stationary portion to correct texture heterogeneity.”, does not seem persuasive, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In this case, the claim is directed to an apparatus, a manufacturing line that includes a detection device that identify a position in a longitudinal direction of a steel sheet, and a control unit that controls the heating device based on the information from the detection device and as shown above Suguhiro’s apparatus comprises all these elements of the claimed apparatus and therefore, is capable of doing the claimed functions as shown in the rejection section.
With respect to Applicant’s argument about “Shimada discloses a control system for an "edge heater'' to control temperature distribution across the width of a strip (Center vs. Edge) [Shimada, Abstract; Fig. 6]. Shimada calculates temperatures of rectangular elements to effectively control edge heaters to maintain width-wise uniformity. Shimada is silent regarding detecting the longitudinal leading or tail ends to apply a higher temperature to those ends compared to the stationary portion.
With respect to Applicant’s argument about “Shimoda's goal is uniformity across the width, whereas the present invention creates a deliberate non-uniformity along the length ( ends vs. middle) to solve a texture problem specific to the coil ends.”, does not seem persuasive, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In this case, a manufacturing line that includes a detection device that detects a position in a longitudinal direction of a steel sheet, and a control unit that controls the heating device based on longitudinal position information from the detection device and as shown above Shimoda’s apparatus comprises all the elements of the claimed apparatus and therefore, is capable of doing the claimed functions as shown in the rejection section.
With respect to Applicant’s argument about Masayasu, has been considered but moot as Masayasu is not being used to reject claim 6 and Applicant did not provide any specific argument regarding Masayasu with respect to claim 11.
Therefore, the claims 6-7 has been rejected under 35 USC § 103 over Suguhiro and alternatively rejected under 35 USC § 103 over Shimoda (please see the corresponding rejection section for further details). Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Fukushima Suguhiro et.al. [JP2018051576A] and further in view of Ueno Masayasu et.al. [JP2011224594A] and alternatively over Naoki Shimoda et.al. [US10710133B2] and further in view of Ueno Masayasu et.al. [JP2011224594A] (please see the corresponding rejection section for further details).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Uemura Tadashi, et.al. [JPH0899110A] (machine translation) teaches the end temperature calculation positions of the steel plate are given at two locations, one at the front and one at the rear in the longitudinal direction, as shown in Figure 2, and the temperatures of the longitudinal tail end (hereinafter referred to as the rear end) in addition to the longitudinal tip end (hereinafter referred to as the front end) of the steel plate at the time of removal from the heating furnace are estimated, thereby improving the prediction accuracy of the steel plate temperature used as the basis for load prediction calculations, and by calculating and setting the roll gap from the obtained predicted load, highly accurate plate thickness control [0017].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5421. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM-7:00PM (EST).
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, Merkling Sally can be reached on (571)2726297. 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.
/NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights