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 Amendments/ Status of Claims
An amendment, filed 06/26/2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
Claim 6 has been amended, amendment finds supports in the instant specification at least in the paragraph [0042].
Claim 12-15 are newly added, new claims find supports in the instant specification at least in the paragraph [0043] and [0049].
Claim 1-5 and 8-10 are withdrawn.
Therefore, claims 6-7 and 11-15 are currently under consideration for this office action.
Status of Previous Rejections
The previous alternative 35 USC § 112(b) rejections of the claims 6-7 and 11 have been maintained.
The previous 35 USC § 103 rejections of the claims 6-7 and 11 have been maintained.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC § 112 (f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 6, recites “a detection device is configured to detect a position in a longitudinal direction of a steel sheet” in line 3, is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
The generic placeholder is “detection device” and
the generic placeholder is modified by the functional limitation, “configured to detect a position in a longitudinal direction of a steel sheet”,
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, …….”, and paragraph [0042] describes “a detection device that detects the position in the longitudinal direction of the coil”, both of which are similar as claimed instantly, therefore, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim 6, also recites a functional limitation attributed to the claimed “control unit is configured to control heating device” in line 6, is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
The generic placeholder is “control unit” and
the functional limitation is, “is configured to control the heating device”,
there are only three paragraphs in the instant specification that describes “control unit”, in paragraph, [0013], “the control unit controls the heating device”, and paragraph [0042] describes “a control unit of the heating device”, both of which are similar as claimed instantly, therefore, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim 14 and 15, recite an additional functional limitation attributed to the claimed “the tandem mill is configured to perform rolling” in line 16, is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
The generic placeholder is “the tandem mill” and
the functional limitation is, “configured to perform rolling”,
the paragraphs [0038] and [0039] in the instant specification describes “tandem mill comprising stand and work rolls” and therefore, the structure is being provided for performing the functional limitations.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-7, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6, recites “a detection device is configured to detect a position in a longitudinal direction of a steel sheet” in line 3. The specification does not disclose any structure that can reasonably be constructed or understood as a detection device for detection a position in a longitudinal direction of a steel sheet.
As a result, because the specification does not disclose any structure that can be construed as meeting the functional limitations prescribed to the claimed “detection device” the specification lacks sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed “control device” at the time of filing (see [MPEP 2161.01]).
Claim 6, also recites a functional limitation attributed to the claimed “control unit is configured to control heating device” in line 6. The specification does not disclose any structure that can reasonably be constructed or understood as a control unit is configured to control the heating device based on the identified position in a longitudinal direction from the detection device, there is no known structure of the detection device and no known structure of the detection device output and no connected structure to the control unit or heating device is performed to the controlling function. In general meaning a “control unit” implies that there some element of control is being applied, but there is no disclosure in the specification of a processor/computer, an algorithm/software, or any sensors such that control can be applied for detecting the position information and to control the heating device.
As a result, because the specification does not disclose any structure that can be construed as meeting the functional limitations prescribed to the claimed “control unit” the specification lacks sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed “control device” at the time of filing (see [MPEP 2161.01]).
Claims 7 and 11-15 are rejected based on their dependency to claims 6.
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.
Claims 6 recites the claim limitation “a detection device” and “a control unit”, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, (see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181).
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 6-7, and 11-15 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 is configure to detect a position in a longitudinal direction of a steel sheet to identify a leading end and a tail end of the steel sheet” and the claim further recites “the control unit is configure to control the heating device based on position information of the leading end and a tail end of the steel sheet output from the detection device”, however, it is not clear what is the detection device and/or how it is connected to the control unit and/or heating device or how does it perform, neither the claim nor the specification describes how the detection device detects a position and how the detection device 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 shown in the paragraph, [0013], and [0042] describes “a detection device that detects the position in the longitudinal direction of the coil” but none of these paragraph describes how the leading and/or tail end position are being identified by the detection device.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 7 and 11-15 are dependent on claim 6 and therefore, are rejected for the same reasons as 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 and 12 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 (see Suguhiro’s FIG. 1 shows the manufacturing facility 1 includes a hot finishing mill train 10, a heating device 20) (see Suguhiro’s [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 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 (see Suguhiro’s [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 Suguhiro is interpreted as being capable of performing the detection as presently claimed detection device, as this is measuring the temperature of the surface (position) temperature of the steel plate), and the internal temperature is calculated by a heat conduction simulation) (see Suguhiro’s [0044]). According to these teaching of Suguhiro, the rough bar before it reaches the work roll of the first stand 11, would read on leading end of the steel sheet in a work roll, as it approaches towards the roll, and the opposite would be the trailing end.
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) that heats the surface portion (a position) in a longitudinal direction 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 (see Suguhiro’s FIG.1, and [0041]). When the temperature difference 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), and heating is performed to satisfy a relation 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 and the temperature distribution and the surface temperature of the steel plate is measured by using a radiation thermometer (detection device) (see Suguhiro’s [0044]). Suguhiro further teaches the central portion being located between the leading end and the tail end in the longitudinal direction of the steel sheet (as shown in the Suguhiro’s FIG.1, the portion of the steel sheets between the two rolls would read on this limitations).
PNG
media_image1.png
566
291
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to the limitation, “a temperature at which at least one of the leading end and the tail end is bitten by the work roll is higher than a temperature at which central portion of the steel sheet is bitten by the work roll, the central portion being located between the leading end and the tail end in the longitudinal direction of the steel sheet”, 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, as 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 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 two temperatures at the time of biting Y is 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 (see Suguhiro’s [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 at least one of the leading end and the tail end is bitten by the work roll is higher than a temperature at which central portion of the steel sheet is bitten by the work roll, the central portion being located between the leading end and the tail end in the longitudinal direction of the steel sheet.
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) (see Suguhiro’s [0028]).
PNG
media_image1.png
566
291
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Length of the Central portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Total length)][AltContent: arrow]Regarding Claim 12, all the above discussions regarding claim 6 is applicable to claim 12, wherein Suguhiro further teaches the central portion being located between the leading end and the tail end in the longitudinal direction of the steel sheet (as shown in the Suguhiro’s FIG.1, the portion of the steel sheets moving in a longitudinal direction between the roll 11 and the roll 17 would meet the limitation of central portion of the steel sheet (see Suguhiro’s FIG.1).
As shown in Suguhiro’s FIG.1, Examiner marked the length of the central portion and the total length in the longitudinal direction of the steel sheet with dotted line in between leading and trailing end, and the calculated central portion of Suguhiro is corresponding to 67 % from the leading end of the steel sheet when a total length in the longitudinal direction of the steel sheet is taken as 100 %, which is within the range as recited in the claim.
Claim 11 and 13 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) 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. (see Masayasu’s [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) (see Masayasu’s [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.
PNG
media_image1.png
566
291
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Length of the Central portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Total length)][AltContent: arrow]Regarding Claim 13, all the above discussions regarding claim 6 and 11 are applicable to claim 13, wherein Suguhiro further teaches the central portion being located between the leading end and the tail end in the longitudinal direction of the steel sheet (as shown in the Suguhiro’s FIG.1, the portion of the steel sheets moving in a longitudinal direction between the roll 11 and the roll 17 would meet the limitation of central portion of the steel sheet (see Suguhiro’s FIG.1).
As shown in Suguhiro’s FIG.1, Examiner marked the length of the central portion and the total length in the longitudinal direction of the steel sheet with dotted line in between leading and trailing end, and the calculated central portion of Suguhiro is corresponding to 67 % from the leading end of the steel sheet when a total length in the longitudinal direction of the steel sheet is taken as 100 %, which is within the range as recited in the claim.
Claim 14 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 W. Stumpf [“Hot work modelling of two equivalent low carbon strip steels produced, respectively, by the cold charge route and by the hot charge route”, The Journal of The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 2004.].
Regarding claims 14, all the above discussions regarding claim 6 are applicable to claim 14, wherein, Suguhiro already teaches the central portion being located between the leading end and the tail end in the longitudinal direction of the steel sheet (as shown in the Suguhiro’s FIG.1, the portion of the steel sheets moving in a longitudinal direction between the roll 11 and the roll 17 would meet the limitation of central portion of the steel sheet (see Suguhiro’s FIG.1).
But Suguhiro is silent about the strain rate and therefore, Suguhiro is silent about “the tandem mill is configured to perform rolling at a strain rate of 65 s-1 or more in the central portion of the steel sheet, and at a strain rate of less than 65 s-1 at either or both of the leading end and the tail end of the steel sheet”.
However, Stumpf teaches conventionally produced hot rolled steel strip producing plant, and in the compact strip plant, especially the relations between hot deformation constants and the hot rolling austenite grain size development in the rolled sheet (see Stumpf’s page 643, Synopsis). Stumpf teaches, up to seven roughing passes (R1 to R7) in a double reversing mill at VDB versus the two (R1 and R2) in a tandem mill at SS and seven finishing passes (F1 to F7) at VDB versus the five (F1 to F5) at SS, in both cases in tandem finishing mills. Stumpf also teaches, strain rate per pass starting at about 3 s-1 at R1 and increasing up to 500 s-1 at F7, whereas at SS, varying from 7 s-1 for R1 to about 150 s-1 for F5. (see Stumpf’s page 644, Overview of the hot rolling processes for strip steel at Ispat Iscor Vanderbijlpark and Saldanha Steel).
Combining above Stumpf’s teachings of the steel strip is starting rolling in roughing mill R1, and Stumpf’s tandem mill is configured to perform rolling at a strain rate of 3 s-1 at R1 or 7 s-1 for R1, and increasing up to 500 s-1 at finish rolling F7, or about 150 s-1 for finish rolling F5, with Suguhiro’s teaching of the central portion of the steel part (see Shimoda’s Col. 11, line 50-67, Col. 5, line 1-5 FIG.1) therefore, Stumpf’s strain rate in the central portion is overlapping with as recited in the instant claim.
Similarly combining above Stumpf’s teachings of the steel strip is starting rolling in roughing mill R1, and Stumpf’s tandem mill is configured to perform rolling at a strain rate of 3 s-1 at R1 or 7 s-1 for R1, with Suguhiro’s teaching of starting rolling the leading end of the steel strip in roughing mill 4 (see Suguhiro’s FIG.1) therefore, Stumpf’s strain rate at the leading of the steel sheet, which is within the as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced the steel sheet with a strain rate from the teachings of Stumpf that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In 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)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Stumpf further teaches both process has significant differences exist, however, in the absolute values of the two sets of activation energies and this has a decided effect on the softening behavior during hot rolling in the two plants. The higher Q value of the fine grained steel are attained very early in the hot rolling process at VDB, even where the strain rate is still typically as low as 5 s-1 at the roughing pass R3. This causes the actual strain per pass to fall below the critical value εc, and hence SRX softening is predicted to be the main softening mechanism almost throughout the entire hot rolling schedule. With the lower Q value are only attained much later in the entire rolling process, typically at the finishing pass F3 from which onwards SRX becomes the softening process (see Stumpf’s page 651, Discussion). In general, the CCR steel produced an irregular austenite grain structure with a smaller austenite grain size starting from an as-cast structure and a larger austenite grain size starting from a hot rolled structure if compared to the HCR steel with its highly regular austenite grain structure (see Stumpf’s page 652, Conclusions). Stumpf also teaches it is predicted that dynamic recrystallization occurs only in the first two break-down passes at the VDB plant and thereafter static recrystallization occurs after exiting from all of the remaining ten or eleven roughing and finishing passes. This is significantly different from what was predicted earlier for the Saldanha Steel plant with its lesser number of passes where static recrystallization is predicted to occur only in the last three passes (see Stumpf’s Synopsis).
Stumpf’s teaching is in the field of hot-rolling of the steel sheet and therefore, analogous to both the instant claim and Suguhiro.
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 Stumpf’s teachings of strain rate in different position to combine with Suguhiro’s rolling plant for controlling the deformation, dynamic recrystallization and static recrystallization to control austenite grains size and morphology based on the steel sheet plant according to the application for intended use.
Claim 15 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, in view of Ueno Masayasu et.al. [JP2011224594A] (Text form the Machine translation and Figures from the original document) and further in view of W. Stumpf [“Hot work modelling of two equivalent low carbon strip steels produced, respectively, by the cold charge route and by the hot charge route”, The Journal of The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 2004.].
Regarding claims 15, all the above discussions regarding claim 6 are applicable to claim 15, wherein, Suguhiro already teaches the central portion being located between the leading end and the tail end in the longitudinal direction of the steel sheet (as shown in the Suguhiro’s FIG.1, the portion of the steel sheets moving in a longitudinal direction between the roll 11 and the roll 17 would meet the limitation of central portion of the steel sheet (see Suguhiro’s FIG.1).
But Suguhiro is silent about the strain rate and therefore, Suguhiro is silent about “the tandem mill is configured to perform rolling at a strain rate of 65 s-1 or more in the central portion of the steel sheet, and at a strain rate of less than 65 s-1 at either or both of the leading end and the tail end of the steel sheet”.
Masayasu is also silent about the strain rate and therefore, Shimoda is silent about “the tandem mill is configured to perform rolling at a strain rate of 65 s-1 or more in the central portion of the steel sheet, and at a strain rate of less than 65 s-1 at either or both of the leading end and the tail end of the steel sheet”.
However, Stumpf teaches conventionally produced hot rolled steel strip producing plant, and in the compact strip plant, especially the relations between hot deformation constants and the hot rolling austenite grain size development in the rolled sheet (see Stumpf’s page 643, Synopsis). Stumpf teaches, up to seven roughing passes (R1 to R7) in a double reversing mill at VDB versus the two (R1 and R2) in a tandem mill at SS and seven finishing passes (F1 to F7) at VDB versus the five (F1 to F5) at SS, in both cases in tandem finishing mills. Stumpf also teaches, strain rate per pass starting at about 3 s-1 at R1 and increasing up to 500 s-1 at F7, whereas at SS, varying from 7 s-1 for R1 to about 150 s-1 for F5. (see Stumpf’s page 644, Overview of the hot rolling processes for strip steel at Ispat Iscor Vanderbijlpark and Saldanha Steel).
Combining above Stumpf’s teachings of the steel strip is starting rolling in roughing mill R1, and Stumpf’s tandem mill is configured to perform rolling at a strain rate of 3 s-1 at R1 or 7 s-1 for R1, and increasing up to 500 s-1 at finish rolling F7, or about 150 s-1 for finish rolling F5, with Suguhiro’s teaching of the central portion of the steel part (see Shimoda’s Col. 11, line 50-67, Col. 5, line 1-5 FIG.1) therefore, Stumpf’s strain rate in the central portion is overlapping with as recited in the instant claim.
Similarly combining above Stumpf’s teachings of the steel strip is starting rolling in roughing mill R1, and Stumpf’s tandem mill is configured to perform rolling at a strain rate of 3 s-1 at R1 or 7 s-1 for R1, with Suguhiro’s teaching of starting rolling the leading end of the steel strip in roughing mill 4 (see Suguhiro’s FIG.1) therefore, Stumpf’s strain rate at the leading of the steel sheet, which is within the as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced the steel sheet with a strain rate from the teachings of Stumpf that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In 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)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Stumpf further teaches both process has significant differences exist, however, in the absolute values of the two sets of activation energies and this has a decided effect on the softening behavior during hot rolling in the two plants. The higher Q value of the fine grained steel are attained very early in the hot rolling process at VDB, even where the strain rate is still typically as low as 5 s-1 at the roughing pass R3. This causes the actual strain per pass to fall below the critical value εc, and hence SRX softening is predicted to be the main softening mechanism almost throughout the entire hot rolling schedule. With the lower Q value are only attained much later in the entire rolling process, typically at the finishing pass F3 from which onwards SRX becomes the softening process (see Stumpf’s page 651, Discussion). In general, the CCR steel produced an irregular austenite grain structure with a smaller austenite grain size starting from an as-cast structure and a larger austenite grain size starting from a hot rolled structure if compared to the HCR steel with its highly regular austenite grain structure (see Stumpf’s page 652, Conclusions). Stumpf also teaches it is predicted that dynamic recrystallization occurs only in the first two break-down passes at the VDB plant and thereafter static recrystallization occurs after exiting from all of the remaining ten or eleven roughing and finishing passes. This is significantly different from what was predicted earlier for the Saldanha Steel plant with its lesser number of passes where static recrystallization is predicted to occur only in the last three passes (see Stumpf’s Synopsis).
Stumpf’s teaching is in the field of hot-rolling of the steel sheet and therefore, analogous to both the instant claim and Masayasu as well as Suguhiro.
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 Stumpf’s teachings of strain rate in different position to combine with Suguhiro’s rolling plant in view of Masayasu for controlling the deformation, dynamic recrystallization and static recrystallization to control austenite grains size and morphology based on the steel sheet plant according to the application for intended use.
Claims 6-7 and 12 are 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 Shimoda’s 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’s FIG. 1 is interpreted as being capable of performing the detection as presently claimed detection device, as this is measuring the surface temperature (position information) of the steel plate and located at different position in the line of Shimoda’s 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) (see Shimoda’s 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 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 ) (see Shimoda’s Col. 4, line 50-67, Col. 5, line 1-5 FIG.1 ).
Shimoda teaches the central portion being located between the leading end and the tail end in the longitudinal direction of the steel sheet (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, using temperatures, thermal conductivity, as shown in the Shimoda’s FIG.1, the portion of the steel sheets moving in a longitudinal direction between the roughing mill 4 and the finishing mill 10 would meet the limitation of central portion (see Shimoda’s Col. 11, line 50-67, Col. 5, line 1-5 FIG.1). Shimoda then teaches an amount of heat generated by processing in the rolling roll bite is calculated using an amount of rolling reduction, material deformation resistance etc. (see Shimoda’s Col. 12, line 1-5, FIG.1), calculates a heat balance, an amount of temperature variation, and accordingly, calculating the temperature of each rectangular element in each time step of each time increment from start to calculation to end of calculation using a finite difference method (see Shimoda’s Col. 15, line 14-17). Shimoda’s temperature calculating unit 100b corrects a calculation result based on a surface temperature (position information) of the steel plate measured by the detection device (thermometers 5, 6, 11, and/or 13) (see Shimoda’s Col. 15, line 43-45).
With respect to the limitation, “a temperature at which at least one of the leading end and the tail end is bitten by the work roll is higher than a temperature at which central 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 central portion of the steel sheet is bitten by the work roll, the central portion being located between the leading end and the tail end in the longitudinal direction of the steel sheet.
Regarding Claim 7, all the above discussions regarding claim 6 is applicable to claim 7 in addition, Shimoda’s edge heater 7 heats an edge part extending in the longitudinal direction of the steel plate by induction heating (see Shimoda’s Col. 4, line 7-15).
Regarding Claim 12, all the above discussions regarding claim 6 is applicable to claim 12, wherein Shimoda already teaches the central portion being located between the leading end and the tail end in the longitudinal direction of the steel sheet (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, using temperatures, thermal conductivity, as shown in the Shimoda’s FIG.1, and with these teachings the portion of the steel sheets moving in a longitudinal direction between the roughing mill 4 and the finishing mill 10 would meet the limitation of central portion (see Shimoda’s Col. 11, line 50-67, Col. 5, line 1-5 FIG.1). Shimoda then teaches an amount of heat generated by processing in the rolling roll bite is calculated using an amount of rolling reduction, material deformation resistance etc. (see Shimoda’s Col. 12, line 1-5, FIG.1), and a heat balance calculation, an amount of temperature variation, and accordingly, calculating the temperature of each rectangular element in each time step of each time increment from start to calculation to end of calculation using a finite difference method (see Shimoda’s Col. 15, line 14-17) and Shimoda’s temperature calculating unit 100b corrects a calculation result based on a surface temperature (position information) of the steel plate measured by the detection device (thermometers 5, 6, 11,
PNG
media_image3.png
464
622
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Total length)][AltContent: textbox (Length of the Central portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]and/or 13) (see Shimoda’s Col. 15, line 43-45).
As shown in Shimoda’s FIG.1, Examiner marked the length of the central portion and the total length in the longitudinal direction of the steel sheet in between leading and trailing end, the calculated central portion of Shimoda is corresponding to 47 % from the leading end of the steel sheet when a total length in the longitudinal direction of the steel sheet is taken as 100 %, which is within the range as recited in the claim.
Claim 11 and 13 are 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 (see Masayasu’s [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) (see Masayasu’s [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.
Regarding Claim 13, all the above discussions regarding claim 6 and 11 are applicable to claim 13, wherein Shimoda already teaches the central portion being located between the leading end and the tail end in the longitudinal direction of the steel sheet (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, using temperatures, thermal conductivity, as shown in the Shimoda’s FIG.1, and with these teachings the portion of the steel sheets moving in a longitudinal direction between the roughing mill 4 and the finishing mill 10 would meet the limitation of central portion (see Shimoda’s Col. 11, line 50-67, Col. 5, line 1-5 FIG.1). Shimoda then teaches an amount of heat generated by processing in the rolling roll bite is calculated using an amount of rolling reduction, material deformation resistance etc. (see Shimoda’s Col. 12, line 1-5, FIG.1), and a heat balance calculation, an amount of temperature variation, and accordingly, calculating the temperature of each rectangular element in each time step of each time increment from start to calculation to end of calculation using a finite difference method (see Shimoda’s Col. 15, line 14-17) and Shimoda’s temperature calculating unit 100b corrects a calculation result based on a surface temperature (position information) of the steel plate measured by the detection device (thermometers 5, 6, 11,
PNG
media_image3.png
464
622
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Total length)][AltContent: textbox (Length of the Central portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]and/or 13) (see Shimoda’s Col. 15, line 43-45).
As shown in Shimoda’s FIG.1, Examiner marked the length of the central portion and the total length in the longitudinal direction of the steel sheet in between leading and trailing end, the calculated central portion of Shimoda is corresponding to 47 % from the leading end of the steel sheet when a total length in the longitudinal direction of the steel sheet is taken as 100 %, which is within the range as recited in the claim.
Claim 14 is 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 W. Stumpf [“Hot work modelling of two equivalent low carbon strip steels produced, respectively, by the cold charge route and by the hot charge route”, The Journal of The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 2004.].
Regarding claims 14, all the above discussions regarding claim 6 are applicable to claim 14, wherein, Shimoda teaches a central portion being located between the leading end and the tail end in the longitudinal direction of the steel sheet (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, using temperatures, thermal conductivity, as shown in the Shimoda’s FIG.1, the portion of the steel sheets moving in a longitudinal direction between the roughing mill 4 and the finishing mill 10 would meet the limitation of central portion (see Shimoda’s Col. 11, line 50-67, Col. 5, line 1-5 FIG.1). Shimoda is silent about the steel sheet is hot-rolled and annealed steel sheet.
But Shimoda is silent about the strain rate and therefore, Shimoda is silent about “the tandem mill is configured to perform rolling at a strain rate of 65 s-1 or more in the central portion of the steel sheet, and at a strain rate of less than 65 s-1 at either or both of the leading end and the tail end of the steel sheet”.
However, Stumpf teaches conventionally produced hot rolled steel strip producing plant, and in the compact strip plant, especially the relations between hot deformation constants and the hot rolling austenite grain size development in the rolled sheet (see Stumpf’s page 643, Synopsis). Stumpf teaches, up to seven roughing passes (R1 to R7) in a double reversing mill at VDB versus the two (R1 and R2) in a tandem mill at SS and seven finishing passes (F1 to F7) at VDB versus the five (F1 to F5) at SS, in both cases in tandem finishing mills. Stumpf also teaches, strain rate per pass starting at about 3 s-1 at R1 and increasing up to 500 s-1 at F7, whereas at SS, varying from 7 s-1 for R1 to about 150 s-1 for F5. (see Stumpf’s page 644, Overview of the hot rolling processes for strip steel at Ispat Iscor Vanderbijlpark and Saldanha Steel).
Combining above Stumpf’s teachings of the steel strip is starting rolling in roughing mill R1, and Stumpf’s tandem mill is configured to perform rolling at a strain rate of 3 s-1 at R1 or 7 s-1 for R1, and increasing up to 500 s-1 at finish rolling F7, or about 150 s-1 for finish rolling F5, with Shimoda’s teaching of starting rolling the leading end of the steel strip in roughing mill, and the central portion of the steel part is between the roughing mill 4 and the finishing mill 10 (see Shimoda’s Col. 11, line 50-67, Col. 5, line 1-5 FIG.1) therefore, Stumpf’s strain rate in the central portion is overlapping with as recited in the instant claim.
Similarly combining above Stumpf’s teachings of the steel strip is starting rolling in roughing mill R1, and Stumpf’s tandem mill is configured to perform rolling at a strain rate of 3 s-1 at R1 or 7 s-1 for R1, with Shimoda’s teaching of starting rolling the leading end of the steel strip in roughing mill 4 (see Shimoda’s Col. 11, line 50-67, Col. 5, line 1-5 FIG.1) therefore, Stumpf’s strain rate at the leading of the steel sheet, which is within the as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced the steel sheet with a strain rate from the teachings of Stumpf that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In 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)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Stumpf further teaches both process has significant differences exist, however, in the absolute values of the two sets of activation energies and this has a decided effect on the softening behavior during hot rolling in the two plants. The higher Q value of the fine grained steel are attained very early in the hot rolling process at VDB, even where the strain rate is still typically as low as 5 s-1 at the roughing pass R3. This causes the actual strain per pass to fall below the critical value εc, and hence SRX softening is predicted to be the main softening mechanism almost throughout the entire hot rolling schedule. With the lower Q value are only attained much later in the entire rolling process, typically at the finishing pass F3 from which onwards SRX becomes the softening process (see Stumpf’s page 651, Discussion). In general, the CCR steel produced an irregular austenite grain structure with a smaller austenite grain size starting from an as-cast structure and a larger austenite grain size starting from a hot rolled structure if compared to the HCR steel with its highly regular austenite grain structure (see Stumpf’s page 652, Conclusions). Stumpf also teaches it is predicted that dynamic recrystallization occurs only in the first two break-down passes at the VDB plant and thereafter static recrystallization occurs after exiting from all of the remaining ten or eleven roughing and finishing passes. This is significantly different from what was predicted earlier for the Saldanha Steel plant with its lesser number of passes where static recrystallization is predicted to occur only in the last three passes (see Stumpf’s Synopsis).
Stumpf’s teaching is in the field of hot-rolling of the steel sheet and therefore, analogous to both the instant claim and Shimoda.
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 Stumpf’s teachings of strain rate in different position to combine with Shimoda’s rolling plant for controlling the deformation, dynamic recrystallization and static recrystallization to control austenite grains size and morphology based on the steel sheet plant according to the application for intended use.
Claim 15 is 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, in view of Ueno Masayasu et.al. [JP2011224594A] (Text form the Machine translation and Figures from the original document) and further in view of W. Stumpf [“Hot work modelling of two equivalent low carbon strip steels produced, respectively, by the cold charge route and by the hot charge route”, The Journal of The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 2004.].
Regarding claims 15, all the above discussions regarding claim 6 are applicable to claim 15, wherein, Shimoda teaches a central portion being located between the leading end and the tail end in the longitudinal direction of the steel sheet (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, using temperatures, thermal conductivity, as shown in the Shimoda’s FIG.1, the portion of the steel sheets moving in a longitudinal direction between the roughing mill 4 and the finishing mill 10 would meet the limitation of central portion (see Shimoda’s Col. 11, line 50-67, Col. 5, line 1-5 FIG.1). Shimoda is silent about the steel sheet is hot-rolled and annealed steel sheet.
But Shimoda is silent about the strain rate and therefore, Shimoda is silent about “the tandem mill is configured to perform rolling at a strain rate of 65 s-1 or more in the central portion of the steel sheet, and at a strain rate of less than 65 s-1 at either or both of the leading end and the tail end of the steel sheet”.
Masayasu is also silent about the strain rate and therefore, Shimoda is silent about “the tandem mill is configured to perform rolling at a strain rate of 65 s-1 or more in the central portion of the steel sheet, and at a strain rate of less than 65 s-1 at either or both of the leading end and the tail end of the steel sheet”.
However, Stumpf teaches conventionally produced hot rolled steel strip producing plant, and in the compact strip plant, especially the relations between hot deformation constants and the hot rolling austenite grain size development in the rolled sheet (see Stumpf’s page 643, Synopsis). Stumpf teaches, up to seven roughing passes (R1 to R7) in a double reversing mill at VDB versus the two (R1 and R2) in a tandem mill at SS and seven finishing passes (F1 to F7) at VDB versus the five (F1 to F5) at SS, in both cases in tandem finishing mills. Stumpf also teaches, strain rate per pass starting at about 3 s-1 at R1 and increasing up to 500 s-1 at F7, whereas at SS, varying from 7 s-1 for R1 to about 150 s-1 for F5. (see Stumpf’s page 644, Overview of the hot rolling processes for strip steel at Ispat Iscor Vanderbijlpark and Saldanha Steel).
Combining above Stumpf’s teachings of the steel strip is starting rolling in roughing mill R1, and Stumpf’s tandem mill is configured to perform rolling at a strain rate of 3 s-1 at R1 or 7 s-1 for R1, and increasing up to 500 s-1 at finish rolling F7, or about 150 s-1 for finish rolling F5, with Shimoda’s teaching of starting rolling the leading end of the steel strip in roughing mill, and the central portion of the steel part is between the roughing mill 4 and the finishing mill 10 (see Shimoda’s Col. 11, line 50-67, Col. 5, line 1-5 FIG.1) therefore, Stumpf’s strain rate in the central portion is overlapping with as recited in the instant claim.
Similarly combining above Stumpf’s teachings of the steel strip is starting rolling in roughing mill R1, and Stumpf’s tandem mill is configured to perform rolling at a strain rate of 3 s-1 at R1 or 7 s-1 for R1, with Shimoda’s teaching of starting rolling the leading end of the steel strip in roughing mill 4 (see Shimoda’s Col. 11, line 50-67, Col. 5, line 1-5 FIG.1) therefore, Stumpf’s strain rate at the leading of the steel sheet, which is within the as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced the steel sheet with a strain rate from the teachings of Stumpf that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In 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)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Stumpf further teaches both process has significant differences exist, however, in the absolute values of the two sets of activation energies and this has a decided effect on the softening behavior during hot rolling in the two plants. The higher Q value of the fine grained steel are attained very early in the hot rolling process at VDB, even where the strain rate is still typically as low as 5 s-1 at the roughing pass R3. This causes the actual strain per pass to fall below the critical value εc, and hence SRX softening is predicted to be the main softening mechanism almost throughout the entire hot rolling schedule. With the lower Q value are only attained much later in the entire rolling process, typically at the finishing pass F3 from which onwards SRX becomes the softening process (see Stumpf’s page 651, Discussion). In general, the CCR steel produced an irregular austenite grain structure with a smaller austenite grain size starting from an as-cast structure and a larger austenite grain size starting from a hot rolled structure if compared to the HCR steel with its highly regular austenite grain structure (see Stumpf’s page 652, Conclusions). Stumpf also teaches it is predicted that dynamic recrystallization occurs only in the first two break-down passes at the VDB plant and thereafter static recrystallization occurs after exiting from all of the remaining ten or eleven roughing and finishing passes. This is significantly different from what was predicted earlier for the Saldanha Steel plant with its lesser number of passes where static recrystallization is predicted to occur only in the last three passes (see Stumpf’s Synopsis).
Stumpf’s teaching is in the field of hot-rolling of the steel sheet and therefore, analogous to both the instant claim and Masayasu as well as Shimoda.
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 Stumpf’s teachings of strain rate in different position to combine with Shimoda’s rolling plant in view of Masayasu for controlling the deformation, dynamic recrystallization and static recrystallization to control austenite grains size and morphology based on the steel sheet plant according to the application for intended use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 06/26/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC § 112(b) 2nd paragraph and 35 USC § 103 rejections for the claims 6-7 and 11 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 “clearly and particularly define the functional relationships and operational coordination among the detection device, the control unit, and the heating device”, does not seem persuasive, because,
according to the Applicant “One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that once the continuous position of the moving steel sheet in the longitudinal direction is tracked or detected by the detection device, the specific regions corresponding to the leading end and the tail end can be naturally, logically, and automatically identified”, this defines the leading, trail end and central portion, as per Applicant, but this does not provide what is the structure of the detection device and how does it detects. As shown in the rejection, Applicant fails to show what kind of structure of the detection device is being used and/or how the detection device identifies the leading end and trail end position. The paragraph, [0013], and [0042] describes “a detection device that detects the position in the longitudinal direction of the coil” but none of these paragraph describes how the leading and/or tail end position are being identified by the detection device. However, it is also not clear what is the detection device and/or how it is connected to the control unit and/or heating device or how does it perform, neither the claim nor the specification describes how the detection device detects a position and how the detection device 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. In addition, Applicant’s amendment is subjected to claim interpretation of 112(f) for using structural language.
With respect to Applicant’s argument about “Suguhiro and Shimoda fail to disclose, teach, or reasonably suggest identifying the longitudinal segments (leading end, central portion, and tail end) of a steel sheet for the purpose of executing an intentionally non-uniform longitudinal temperature control scheme.”, does not seem persuasive because, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (an intentionally non-uniform longitudinal temperature control scheme) 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, an intentionally non-uniform longitudinal temperature control scheme, the claim is directed to “the manufacturing line comprises a detection device that detects configured to detect a position in a longitudinal direction of a steel sheet to identify a leading end and a tail end of the steel sheet in the longitudinal direction, and a control unit of the heating device, and the control unit is configured to control the heating device based on the position information of the leading end and the tail end of the steel sheet output 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 at least one of the leading end and the tail end is bitten by the work roll is higher than a temperature at which a stationary central portion of the steel sheet is bitten by the work roll, the central portion being located between the leading end and the tail end in the longitudinal direction of the steel sheet”, and neither claim nor the specification teaches any structure of the detection device or how the detection device identifies the position or how the control unit having the position information from the detection device. In addition 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 (a position in the steel sheet) 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 control unit 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 “Shimoda specifies a temperature profile across a cross section in both a plate-width direction and a plate-thickness direction. See Shimoda at Abstract.”, does not seem persuasive, because, Shimoda discloses a manufacturing line (a rolling system 20 shown in Shimoda’s 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’s FIG. 1 is interpreted as being capable of performing the detection as presently claimed detection device, as this is measuring the surface temperature (position information) of the steel plate and located at different position in the line of Shimoda’s FIG. 1) that detects different positions 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) (see Shimoda’s Col. 3, line 43-54, FIG.1). Shimoda teaches the central portion being located between the leading end and the tail end in the longitudinal direction of the steel sheet (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, using temperatures, thermal conductivity, as shown in the Shimoda’s FIG.1, the portion of the steel sheets moving in a longitudinal direction between the roughing mill 4 and the finishing mill 10 is the central portion (see Shimoda’s Col. 11, line 50-67, Col. 5, line 1-5 FIG.1). With respect to the limitation, “a temperature at which at least one of the leading end and the tail end is bitten by the work roll is higher than a temperature at which central 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 central portion of the steel sheet is bitten by the work roll, the central portion being located between the leading end and the tail end in the longitudinal direction of the steel sheet.
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.
Therefore, the claims have 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) and other prior arts as required by the amendments
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 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