DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21 and 26 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 21 depends from canceled claim 16 and it is not clear if claim 21 was supposed to be canceled also.
Claim 26, line 4 recites “on an inside facing” it is not clear what facing is referring to, is it a side of the metal strip or a different structure?
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.
Claim(s) 1,5,10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprung et al. (4,651,914) in view of Hasegawa et al. (2020/0038929). Sprung discloses a method of forming a tube (Figs. 6a-6f) comprising pressing a metal strip segment (16) into a tubular shape (col. 3, lines 64-68) with rollers (28,30) so that opposite longitudinal ends (col. 3, line 68-col. 4, line 1) of the strip meet to form a seam and welding the seam (32,34; col. 4, lines 2-5, Fig. 5) to join the longitudinal ends. After welding, the tubular shape is corrected in a straightener comprising a roller press (38, Fig. 6g; col. 4, lines 6-8). Sprung discloses a computer control (42; col. 4, lines 27-33) that is configured to control the forming rollers (28,30), the welder (32,34) and the roller press straightener (38). Sprung discloses that after welding an optical pyrometer (44; Fig. 5) detects a weld temperature (col. 4, lines 48-51) at the welding seam and the computer control is configured to control the welding transformer (46) and mill speed and that the computer control (42) is configured to control the roller press straightener to vary a bend, sag or radius of the tube (col. 7, lines 19-23). Sprung does not disclose that a cross-sectional profile of the tube is measured at a position near the seam. Hasegawa teaches forming a strip segment (1) with forming rollers ([0089], lines 3-6) and welding (7; [0089], lines 8-15) ends (4,4) of the strip segment together (Fig. 1) to form a tube. Hasegawa teaches that after welding an imaging device (8) is configured to measure a cross-sectional profile (geometric V-convergence point V1; [0090], lines 1- 10) of at least part of the strip segment (1) at or near (region of 5-30mm; [0090], lines 13-14) the welded seam. The profile measurement is fed into a control unit (100; [0092], lines 1-7) and a judgement ([0096],[0105) is made to whether the cross-sectional profile is in misalignment. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute the profile sensor of Hasegawa for the optical pyrometer of Sprung so as to create an image of the profile of the welding seam in a segment of the tube that is useable to identify whether a shape of the tube needs to be corrected by the straightener roller press following welding of the tube seam. Regarding claims 5 and 20, the roller press of Sprung (Figs. 6a-6f) comprises rollers (28,30) which are a different roller press from the roller press (38) which straightens and corrects the tube shape. Regarding claim 10, a tower or foundation is a tubular structure and Sprung discloses offshore construction of a tubular structure in a mobile former on a barge.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archer (3,738,149) in view of Yamamoto et al. (JP 2006-272365). Archer discloses a method of forming a tube in a roller press (Figs. 2a-2d) comprising pressing a metal strip segment (20) into a tubular shape (col. 2, lines 40-45) with rollers (16,18,24,26) in the roller press so that opposite longitudinal ends (open ends; col. 2, line 52) of the strip segment meet to form a seam and welding the seam (col. 2, lines 53-55) to join the longitudinal ends. After welding, the tubular shape is corrected in the roller press (col. 2, lines 56-58). Archer does not disclose that a cross-sectional profile of the tube near the welding seam is measured and that the measurement data is used to adjust the tube shape. Yamamoto teaches that a metal strip segment formed into a tube (P) is corrected in a roller press (Figs. 3 and 4) wherein a sensor (1b; [0014]) in a measuring device (1) is configured to measure a cross-sectional profile (shape) of the tube (P) and diameter (radius) data that is measured [0016] is fed into a control unit (2). A calculation unit (2b) of the control unit (2) calculates and compares whether a roundness (actual cross-sectional profile) is within a specified range [0018] and thereafter the tube is straightened by detecting the weld bead (Pb; [0020]) and correcting the cross-sectional profile in the roller press with a corrector (4) until the cross-sectional profile is determined to be a true roundness [0027] with a diameter range between a maximum and minimum diameter. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the roller press of Archer to include a cross-sectional profile measurement device and control unit as taught by Yamamoto in order to control the rounding of the tube in the roller press after welding to be within an acceptable range based on measurement of the diameter.
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto teaches a contact type sensor (1b, Fig. 1; [0013], lines 120-122) measurement tool wherein distance of the tool is a contact (zero distance) between a profile of the tube near the detected weld bead (Pb) and the measurement tool. Yamamoto teaches that a non-contact type sensing device (light beam; [0021]) is useable wherein location data near the weld bead (Pb) is measured by a light beam.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Yamamoto teaches diameter (radius) data [0014],[0016] wherein the control device (2) is operated to bring the actual diameter to a set diameter between a maximum diameter and a minimum diameter, it is obvious that when a diameter is calculated the radius of a tube is known, since diameter = radius/2.
Regarding claim 6, Archer discloses rolling the strip segment (20) into a tubular shape (Figs. 2a-2d) and profile adjusting (rounding, Fig. 2E) in the same roller press after welding.
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto teaches an algorithm (calculation and comparison) with the control unit (2) comprising an input (2a), a calculation unit (2b) and an output (2c; [0018]).
Regarding claim 8, Archer discloses outer rolls (26,24,16) and an inner roll (18) wherein at least a pushing means (10) is used to push the tube against the inner and outer rolls during rounding.
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto teaches a laser (light beam) non-contact measurement device [0021].
Regarding claim 10, a tower or foundation is a tubular structure and Archer and Yamamoto are directed to producing tubular structures.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archer (3,738,149) in view of Yamamoto et al. (JP 2006-272365) and further in view of Sato (2021/0023600). Archer does not disclose that the strip segment is comprised of multiple strip segments. Sato teaches forming a welded tube (1d) that is configured from an assembled blank comprising a plurality of metal strip segments [0051] which are tailor welded, stacked or laminated. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to form the strip segment of Archer from a plurality of strip segments as taught by Sato in order to form a differential thickness or laminated tube structure.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archer (3,738,149) in view of Yamamoto et al. (JP 2006-272365) and further in view of Tazoe (JP 01-130831). Archer in view of Yamamoto does not disclose that the strip segment is pre-pressed in a first press into a segment, then welded and then introduced into a second press for re-pressing. Tazoe teaches (page 4, lines 7-10; Fig. 1) that a strip segment (1) is pre-pressed in a first roller press (5,6) into a segment (7), welded at the seams (8) to form a tube (8) and then introduced into a second roller press (3,4) to re-press the welded tube. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to pre-press the strip segment of Archer in view of Yamamoto into a shaped segment in a roller press as taught by Tazoe so as to pre-form the strip segment to a desired shaped prior to welding and re-pressing in a separate press.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The prior art of record does disclose the steps of, pressing a strip segment into a tubular shape in a roller press comprising at least one roll on an inside facing side of the metal strip, and at least two rolls at an outside facing side of the metal strip or the series of metal strips to form a seam, welding the seam, after welding measuring a cross sectional profile of at least part of the strip segment, at or near the welded seam and feeding data of the measurement into a control unit and after the data of the measurement is fed into the control unit, a press is operated by the control unit based on the data to adjust the cross sectional profile of the strip segment at the seam by operating a roller press having at least three rolls, wherein the strip segment is supported by two rolls at an outer surface of the strip segment, at opposite sides of the seam, and at least a third roll of the rolls is pushed against an inner surface of the strip segment, at or near the seam, towards the two rolls at the outer surface, wherein a force for said pushing and/or a distance of travel of the third roll relative to the two rolls at the outer surface is controlled by the control unit based on the measurement data.
Claims 27,30 and 31 would be allowable as they depend from allowable claim 26.
Claim 29 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim 1 and intervening claim 28. The prior art of record does not disclose that the first press and the second press are stationed near a beginning and near an end of a segment processing line, wherein the welding station is located in between the two presses, wherein the metal plate or series of metal plates is introduced into the first press, between at least one upper roll and at least two lower rolls, and is pre-pressed into said segment, is removed from the first press and fed through the welding station for said welding and is thereafter introduced into the second press, between at least one roll extending inside the segment and at least two rolls extending outside the segment, supporting the segment, wherein the at least one roll extending inside the segment is pushed against an inside of the seam, pushing said seam outward, whereas the at least two rolls supporting the segment outside the segment support the segment along opposite sides of the seam, such that a direction of pushing of the at least one roll inside the segment is orientated radially between said at least two rolls outside the segment, including the limitations of base claim 1 and intervening claim 28.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7-27-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues segments (page 8, paragraph 6) as a limited length and it is not clear from claim 1 how long of a piece of metal is when it is considered to be a limited segment length since claim 1 recites “a strip or a series of strips”, this language appears to cover very long segments as a series of strips would suggest.
Applicant argues “parallel” rolls (page 9, paragraph 2) which is not a claim limitation of claim 1 or any of the claims depending from claim 1 and it is not clear how this argument applies to the current claim set and what a scope of this argument is.
Applicant argues “after welding” (page 10, paragraph), the claim 1 recitation is “after welding, measuring the cross sectional profile of at least part of the segment, at least at and/or near said welded seam or seams” this is a broad recitation which includes “and/or” terminology and the term “near” which could be anywhere upstream or downstream of the weld, Yamamoto ([0020], lines 171-173) specifically teaches detecting the weld bead Pb of the steel P, considering the outer diameter (cross-sectional dimension) and then pressing with pressing means (4; Fig. 4b) and Hasegawa teaches that the imaging device (8) senses a region of 5-30 mm from the point V1 ([0090, lines 12-16), the direction (3; Fig. 1) is upstream to downstream, the welding (7) is upstream from the imaging device (8), the imaging device being after the welding.
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 EDWARD THOMAS TOLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chris Templeton can be reached 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.
/EDWARD T TOLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
