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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 6-7 of the Remarks that Fujita does not anticipate the amended Claim 1 after the removal of the “in a case” phrasing, as the claim now requires the material to be rolled with a linear load of 1.4 t/mm or more. It is true that Fujita does not teach a linear load of that value, so the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is withdrawn. However, the amended claim language has introduced a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as two different ranges for the linear load are recited (see discussion below), so the claim is not in condition for allowance.
Applicant argues on page 7-8 of the Remarks that the “in a case” limitation of Claim 8 must be given patentable weight because it is a contingent limitation and MPEP 2111.04 teaches that the prior art must teach the structure that performs the contingent limitation. Examiner notes that the only structure present in the Applicant’s disclosure that is capable of rolling the material to be rolled with a linear load of 1.4 t/mm or more is the N-th stand having a tapered work roll, which Fujita also discloses. Furthermore, Fujita does not teach away from using a linear load of 1.4 t/mm or more; although the example provided only shows a linear load of approximately 1.05 t/mm (see Figure 4b), this is not an upper limit of the disclosed rolling mill, it is just demonstrative of the load across the strip being rolled being more evenly distributed than the prior art, which has a sharp spike in load where the taper of the work roll begins (see Figure 5b). As there is no teaching that suggests an upper limit to the load capability of the tapered rolls disclosed by Fujita, one skilled in the art could be motivated to modify the cold rolling equipment of Fujita such that there is a case where a linear load of the N-th stand is set as 1.4 t/mm or more if the rolling parameters (i.e. initial/final strip thickness, strip material, etc.) requires it.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-10 of the Remarks that the criticality of the claimed linear load range (1.7 t/mm or more) and the unexpected benefits thereof are provided in Figure 16 and Tables 5 and 6 of the Applicant’s specification and therefore the cited prior art would not be obvious to modify, Examiner respectfully disagrees. While it is true that the Applicant has established the criticality of the claimed range, the benefits provided by said range are not considered to be unexpected. The tests conducted by the Applicant when determining the optimal linear load range and tapered portion width measured edge drop ratio and presence/absence of edge cracking. Edge drop is a common consideration when designing rolling mills of this type and is discussed in Honjo (pg. 4 lns 12-17: the disclosed invention controls the edge drop), Nishi (col. 1 lns 41-44), and Fujita ([0032] lns 1-2), and prevention of edge cracking is an obvious benefit that one skilled in the art would strive for. Accordingly, one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention through routine research and development practices.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a linear load of 0.8 t/mm or more”, and the claim also recites “a linear load of 1.4 t/mm or more” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 4, 7, and 15-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon Claim 1.
Examiner note: no art has been applied to Claim 1 and its dependents; however, the claim(s) as currently set forth are not deemed allowable and Applicant is required to clarify in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 so as to facilitate a clear understanding of the claimed invention and the protection sought.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al., hereinafter Fujita (JP H06-91309, provided by Applicant), in view of Nishi et al., hereinafter Nishi (US 7,004,002). For text citations of Fujita, refer to the machine translation provided as Non-Patent Literature with the Office action mailed 11/04/2025.
Regarding Claim 8, Fujita discloses (Figures 1-2 and 4) cold rolling equipment including a rolling mill having a plurality of stands ([0012] ln 1: a tandem mill comprising a plurality of rolling stands is used) for cold-rolling a material to be rolled, wherein an N-th stand (N is a natural number equal to or greater than 2) arranged in an N-th position from an upstream side of the material to be rolled in a transfer direction among the plurality of stands ([0025] lns 2-3: the N-th stand is the No. 2 stand of the five-stand tandem cold rolling mill), includes a tapered work roll (work rolls A-1 and A-2) having a taper (tapered portion 3) formed on an end portion of a roll having a uniform diameter (straight portion 2), and a linear load of the N-th stand is set as 0.8 t/mm or more (Figure 4(b) clearly shows the tapered work roll has a linear load of 0.8 t/mm or more).
Fujita is silent to a tapered portion rolling width. In the same field of endeavor, Nishi teaches (Figures 1 and 3C) cold rolling equipment (col. 1 lns 5-6) including a rolling mill having a plurality of stands (see para. [0034]-[0035]: either a reversible mill having a small number, i.e. a plurality, of stands, or a tandem mill that uses a plurality of stands is used) for cold-rolling a material to be rolled (material 19), wherein a stand includes a tapered work roll (work rolls 1A/1B) having a taper (tapered portion 4A/4B) formed on an end portion of a roll having a uniform diameter, wherein a tapered rolling portion width WRδ which is a length, which is configured to face the material to be rolled, of the taper formed on the tapered work roll (col. 7 lns 38-43: the length of tapered portion corresponding to work roll position δw0 is the tapered rolling portion width WRδ) is set at -50 mm to -5 mm, where a length of 0 mm starts where the taper begins (start points 20A/20B), a negative direction extends toward the taper, and a positive direction extends toward the uniform diameter of the roll (Figure 3C shows work roll position δw0 being 50 mm from the strip edge, and Figure 1 shows the edges G/H of material 19 extending in the direction of the tapered portions 4A/4B). Setting the tapered rolling portion width in this manner is advantageous as it reduces the edge drop that occurs when rolling to almost match the target edge drop value (col. 7 lns 48-50). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cold rolling equipment disclosed by Fujita such that the tapered rolling portion width WRδ of the taper formed on the tapered work roll of each of the N-th stand and the (N+1)-th stand is set as -50 mm to -5 mm, as taught by Nishi, in order to reduce edge drop to a target value.
Examiner note: regarding the limitation “in a case where a linear load of the N-th stand is set as 1.4 t/mm or more”, neither Fujita nor Nishi explicitly teach setting a linear load of this magnitude. However, this is a contingent limitation, and as Claim 8 is an apparatus claim, the prior art need only teach a structure that performs the function of said contingent limitation. According to Applicant’s disclosure, the structure which performs the function of the linear load being 1.4 t/mm or more is a tapered work roll, which is present in both Fujita and Nishi. As neither Fujita nor Nishi explicitly or implicitly teaches away from using this linear load, the tapered work rolls of each reference are considered to be capable of rolling the material to be rolled with a linear load of 1.4 t/mm or more, and thus the limitation is met.
Regarding Claim 11, Fujita discloses among the plurality of stands, an (N + 1)-th stand arranged in an (N + 1)-th position on a downstream side of the N-th stand rolls the material to be rolled with a flat work roll having a uniform diameter of a roll ([0025] lns 2-3: the tapered work rolls are only used in the No. 1 and No. 2 stands of the five-stand tandem mill, so the No. 3 stand, i.e. the (N + 1)-th stand, has flat work rolls).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita in view of Nishi as applied to Claim 8 above, and further in view of Honjo et al., hereinafter Honjo (JP S60-148610). For text citations of Honjo, refer to the machine translation provided as Non-Patent Literature with the Office action mailed 11/04/2025.
Regarding Claim 14, Fujita discloses that the tapered work rolls are used in multiple stands (i.e. not all stands) of a tandem rolling mill ([0032] lns 1-2), but is silent to a configuration in which the No.1 stand includes a flat work roll. In the same field of endeavor, Honjo teaches (Figures 4-5) cold rolling equipment including a plurality of stands (rolling mills 14 and 15) for cold-rolling a material to be rolled (rolled material 1), wherein an N-th stand (N is a natural number equal to or greater than 2) arranged in an N-th position from an upstream side of the material to be rolled in a transfer direction among the plurality of stands (rolling mill 14 in (m-1)-th position), includes a tapered work roll (work rolls 17) having a taper (roll taper portion 16) formed on an end portion of a roll having a uniform diameter, and wherein, among the plurality of stands, a stand arranged on an uppermost stream side of the material to be rolled in the transfer direction (rolling mill 15 in position 1) includes a flat work roll having a uniform diameter of a roll (pg. 4 ln 21: rolling mill 15 is described as an “ordinary flat” rolling mill). This configuration of rolling stands is advantageous as it provides an even, rectangular cross section of the width of the rolled material and achieves an improved quality of the crown of the rolled material (pg. 6 lns 8-10). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the plurality of stands in the cold rolling equipment disclosed by Fujita and modified by Nishi such that a stand arranged on an uppermost stream side of the material to be rolled in the transfer direction includes a flat work roll having a uniform diameter of a roll, as taught by Honjo, as this is a known arrangement that provides an improved crown and width-wise cross section of the rolled material.
Claims 5-6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honjo et al., hereinafter Honjo (JP S60-148610), in view of Nishi et al., hereinafter Nishi (US 7,004,002). For text citations of Honjo, refer to the machine translation provided as Non-Patent Literature with the Office action mailed 11/04/2025.
Regarding Claim 5, Honjo discloses (Figures 4-5) a cold rolling method for cold-rolling a material to be rolled (rolled material 1) by a rolling mill including a plurality of stands (rolling mills 14 and 15), wherein an N-th stand, where N is a natural number equal to or greater than 2, arranged in an N-th position from an upstream side of the material to be rolled in a transfer direction (rolling mill 14 in (m-1)-th position) and an (N+1)-th stand arranged in an (N+1)-th position on a downstream side of the N-th stand among the plurality of stands (rolling mill 14 in m-th position), include a tapered work roll (work roll 17) having a taper (roll taper portion 16) formed on an end portion of a roll having a uniform diameter, the method comprising: rolling the material to be rolled with each of the N-th stand and the (N+1)-th stand with a linear load (pg. 4 lns 19-21: the material is rolled in the rolling mills 14 in the m-th and (m-1)-th passes, i.e. the (N+1)-th and N-th stands, respectively; any rolling pass will inherently have a linear load) and a tapered rolling portion width WRδ which is a length, which is configured to face the material to be rolled, of the taper formed on the tapered work roll of each of the N-th stand and the (N+1)-th stand is set to extend toward the taper (clearly seen in Figure 4).
Honjo is silent to the magnitude of the linear load applied by each of the N-th stand and the (N+1)-th stand. However, as the Applicant has not set forth any criticality to the selection of this particular linear load that results in an unexpected benefit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the cold rolling method disclosed by Honjo such that the linear load of each of the N-th stand and the (N+1)-th stand is 1.7 t/mm or more, because such selection or determination would be the result of routine mechanical optimization and does not in itself warrant patentability, as one would arrive at such optimization through routine engineering practices.
Further regarding Claim 5, Honjo is silent to the specific dimensions of the tapered rolling portion widths WRδ, but does provide a control device and process for determining the optimal shifting of the work rolls and setting the work rolls to the calculated WRδ (pg. 5 lns 8-16). In the same field of endeavor, Nishi teaches (Figures 1 and 3C) a cold rolling method (col. 1 lns 5-6) for cold-rolling a material to be rolled (material 19) by a rolling mill including a plurality of stands (see para. [0034]-[0035]: the method can be performed on a reversible mill having a small number, i.e. a plurality, of stands, or with a tandem mill that uses a plurality of stands), wherein a stand includes a tapered work roll (work rolls 1A/1B) having a taper (tapered portion 4A/4B) formed on an end portion of a roll having a uniform diameter, the method comprising a tapered rolling portion width WRδ which is a length, which is configured to face the material to be rolled, of the taper formed on the tapered work roll (col. 7 lns 38-43: the length of tapered portion corresponding to work roll position δw0 is the tapered rolling portion width WRδ) is set at -50 mm to -5 mm, where a length of 0 mm starts where the taper begins (start points 20A/20B), a negative direction extends toward the taper, and a positive direction extends toward the uniform diameter of the roll (Figure 3C shows work roll position δw0 being 50 mm from the strip edge, and Figure 1 shows the edges G/H of material 19 extending in the direction of the tapered portions 4A/4B). Setting the tapered rolling portion width in this manner is advantageous as it reduces the edge drop that occurs when rolling to almost match the target edge drop value (col. 7 lns 48-50). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cold rolling method disclosed by Honjo such that the tapered rolling portion width WRδ of the taper formed on the tapered work roll of each of the N-th stand and the (N+1)-th stand is set as -50 mm to -5 mm, as taught by Nishi, in order to reduce edge drop to a target value.
Regarding Claim 6, Honjo discloses (Figure 5) among the plurality of stands, an (N+2)-th stand arranged in an (N+2)-th position (rolling mill 15 in n-th position) on a downstream side of the (N+1)-th stand (rolling mill 14 in m-th position) rolls the material to be rolled with a flat work roll having a uniform diameter of a roll (pg. 4 ln 21: rolling mill 15 is described as an “ordinary flat” rolling mill).
Regarding Claim 12, Honjo discloses (Figures 4-5) cold rolling equipment including a rolling mill having a plurality of stands (rolling mills 14 and 15) for rolling a material to be rolled (rolled material 1), wherein each of an N-th stand (N is a natural number equal to or greater than 2) arranged in an N-th position (rolling mill 14 in (m-1)-th position) from an upstream side of the material to be rolled in a transfer direction and an (N+1)-th stand arranged in an (N+1)-th position (rolling mill 1 in m-th position) on a downstream side of the N-th stand among the plurality of stands, includes a tapered work roll (work roll 17) having a taper (roll taper portion 16) formed on an end portion of a roll having a uniform diameter, and a tapered rolling portion width WRδ which is a length, which is configured to face the material to be rolled, of the taper formed on the tapered work roll of each of the N-th stand and the (N+1)-th stand is set to extend toward the taper (clearly seen in Figure 4).
Honjo is silent to the magnitude of a linear load applied by each of the N-th stand and the (N+1)-th stand. However, as the Applicant has not set forth any criticality to the selection of this particular linear load that results in an unexpected benefit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the cold rolling equipment disclosed by Honjo such that a linear load of each of the N-th stand and the (N+1)-th stand is set as 1.7 t/mm or more, because such selection or determination would be the result of routine mechanical optimization and does not in itself warrant patentability, as one would arrive at such optimization through routine engineering practices.
Further regarding Claim 12, Honjo is silent to the specific dimensions of the tapered rolling portion widths WRδ, but does provide a control device and process for determining the optimal shifting of the work rolls and setting the work rolls to the calculated WRδ (pg. 5 lns 8-16). In the same field of endeavor, Nishi teaches (Figures 1 and 3C) cold rolling equipment (col. 1 lns 5-6) including a rolling mill having a plurality of stands (see para. [0034]-[0035]: either a reversible mill having a small number, i.e. a plurality, of stands, or a tandem mill that uses a plurality of stands is used) for cold-rolling a material to be rolled (material 19), wherein a stand includes a tapered work roll (work rolls 1A/1B) having a taper (tapered portion 4A/4B) formed on an end portion of a roll having a uniform diameter, wherein a tapered rolling portion width WRδ which is a length, which is configured to face the material to be rolled, of the taper formed on the tapered work roll (col. 7 lns 38-43: the length of tapered portion corresponding to work roll position δw0 is the tapered rolling portion width WRδ) is set at -50 mm to -5 mm, where a length of 0 mm starts where the taper begins (start points 20A/20B), a negative direction extends toward the taper, and a positive direction extends toward the uniform diameter of the roll (Figure 3C shows work roll position δw0 being 50 mm from the strip edge, and Figure 1 shows the edges G/H of material 19 extending in the direction of the tapered portions 4A/4B). Setting the tapered rolling portion width in this manner is advantageous as it reduces the edge drop that occurs when rolling to almost match the target edge drop value (col. 7 lns 48-50). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cold rolling equipment disclosed by Honjo such that the tapered rolling portion width WRδ of the taper formed on the tapered work roll of each of the N-th stand and the (N+1)-th stand is set as -50 mm to -5 mm, as taught by Nishi, in order to reduce edge drop to a target value.
Regarding Claim 13, Honjo discloses (Figure 5) among the plurality of stands, an (N+2)-th stand arranged in an (N+2)-th position (rolling mill 15 in n-th position) on a downstream side of the (N+1)-th stand (rolling mill 14 in m-th position) includes a flat work roll having a uniform diameter of a roll (pg. 4 ln 21: rolling mill 15 is described as an “ordinary flat” rolling mill).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA A GUTHRIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5042. The examiner can normally be reached M/Tu/Th, 10-6 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TERESA A GUTHRIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights