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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Please amend claim 1 to include “A” at the beginning of the preamble.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is 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 6, “an endless belt” has antecedent basis previously established within claim 3. Please amend the claim to clarify Applicant’s intent.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 104368602) in view of Bader (WO 2014/165891A1)
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a method for producing a metal belt, wherein the metal belt is ground on at least one side over substantially the entire surface (see at least lines 21-29), comprising:
in a first step, a transverse curvature in the direction of the belt width is produced on the metal belt by a straightening operation (line 44: the coiled strip is expanded into a flat strip and fed; see also 127-130),
wherein a first side of the metal belt is convexly shaped (lines 49-55 disclose that a detecting probe is used to determine the distance L1 of the probe to the upper surface of the flat strip, distance L2 to the lower surface of the flat strip, and wherein L2 is used to determine the type of defect present, including surface depressions, surface protrusions, and concavo-convex deformation; see line 84, wherein when L2 < Ly, there is a surface convex defect on the lower surface of the flat steel strip) and a second side of the metal belt opposite the first side is at least planar or concave in shape (see lines 80-88, wherein when L1 > Lx, there is a surface depression defect on the upper surface of the flat steel strip), and
in a second step, by grinding of the metal belt, the course of the belt thickness D in the direction of the belt width is changed to a uniform course of a value of the belt thickness D (D(x)=constant) (lines 100-110; see also lines 224-229, wherein the grinding mechanism is used for grinding the upper and lower surfaces of the strip; see also lines 177-190).
While Chen discloses that the grinding mechanism (61) is used to grind upper and lower surfaces of the steel strip, Chen does not explicitly teach performing grinding using the grinding device (6) on the upper surface of the strip if it is determined that there is a concavity present on the upper surface.
From the same or similar field of endeavor of devices for producing metal strips of uniform thickness (see Abstract), Bader (WO 2014/165891A1) teaches of a second side of a metal belt that is at least planar or concave in shape (wherein there is a valley A which is concave in shape), and grinding the second side of the metal belt such that the belt thickness is changed to a uniform course (see at least page 2 of the English translation; wherein the surface in the valleys is additionally leveled by the grinding process; wherein deeper grinding of out of already existing valleys has less negative effects on the grinding result, and a positive effect occurs due to the equalization, and a metal strip with improved quality can be achieved; wherein page 6 discloses abrasively removing within the valley area A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Chen to include grinding within concave areas, as taught by Bader. One would be motivated to do so because even deeper grinding out of already existing valleys has less negative effects on the grinding result and a positive effect occurs due to the equalization. Furthermore, a metal strip with improved quality can be achieved in fewer passes and thus more quickly to uniform thickness; see page 2 of the English translation of Bader.
Regarding claim 2, Chen in view of Bader teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Chen further teaches wherein in the first step the transverse curvature of the metal belt is created with a concave shaped second side of the metal belt (Chen: see lines 80-88, wherein when L1 > Lx, there is a surface depression defect on the upper surface of the flat steel strip).
Regarding claim 7, Chen in view of Bader teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Chen further teaches characterized in that grinding introduces a residual compressive stress into the metal belt that corresponds to a residual compressive stress introduced into the metal belt by straightening (Chen: see lines 44-47, 61-68, 106-110, 155-190, 231-236).
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 104368602) in view of Bader (WO 2014/165891A1), and in further view of Berndorf (AT 517335 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Chen in view of Bader teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the metal belt is closed to form an endless belt before grinding the second side, by welding free ends of the endless belt or by a helical weld.
However from the same or similar field of endeavor, Berndorf (AT 517335 B1) teaches wherein the metal belt is closed to form an endless belt before grinding the second side, by welding free ends of the endless belt or by a helical weld (see pages 4, 9, 11 as well as Figure 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Chen to reflect a closed metal belt, as taught by Berndorf. One would be motivated to do so in order to provide an alternative type of workpiece, while still maintaining the ability to perform metal strip productions with or without welding; see page 4 of Berndorf. This modification would be recognized as using a known technique, i.e. closed metal belt production methods, to improve a similar device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Chen in view of Bader and Berndorf teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Chen further teaches wherein the endless belt is arranged to circulate between two rollers before grinding (see the combination statement as applied above, as well as rollers 17 and 18 in Figures 7 and 8 of Berndorf).
Regarding claim 5, Chen in view of Bader and Berndorf teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Chen further teaches wherein the endless belt is moved relative to a belt grinding device during grinding (see the combination statement as applied above, as well as the grinding device taught within page 11 of Berndorf, and lines 44-47 of Chen).
Regarding claim 6, Chen in view of Bader and Berndorf teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Chen further teaches wherein the metal belt is closed to an endless belt after straightening (Berndorf page 4: wherein a section is removed and the metal strip is welded back to an endless belt).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723