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 .
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 13 and 18-19 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 13, the claim depends from claim 12 and recites “wherein the transverse full-width heating device changes the temperatures of the central portion in the width direction and the end portions in the width direction of the steel sheet on the entry side of the cold rolling mill according to an Si content of the steel sheet” which renders the claim indefinite because claim 1 already recites adjusting the temperature in these sections based on the Si content. It is not clear if claim 13 is reciting an additional function of the heating device or if claims 12 and 13 are directed to the same functions. For the purpose of examination, claim 13 will be interpreted as reciting the same function as claim 12 regarding heating the sections based on the Si content.
Regarding claims 18-19, these claims depend from claims that have been cancelled. For the purpose of examination, these claims will be interpreted as depending from claim 12, however it is noted that claim 16 already depends from claim 12 and recites the same limitation.
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.
Claims 12-13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021-30239 A to Akashi in view of JP 2011-224594 A to Ueno.
Regarding claim 12, Akashi teaches equipment for manufacturing a cold-rolled steel sheet (Abstract; Fig. 1), the equipment comprising:
a transverse full-width heating device 6 that heats a steel sheet over an entire area in a width direction of the steel sheet (Fig. 1; Paras. [0044]-[0045]); and
a cold rolling mill 7 that rolls the steel sheet and that is arranged on a downstream side in a rolling direction with respect to the transverse-type full-width heating device 6 (Fig. 1; Paras. [0044] and [0048),
wherein the transverse full-width heating device 6 heats the steel sheet in such a manner that temperatures of end portions in the width direction becomes higher than a temperature of a central portion in the width direction of the steel sheet on an entry side of the cold rolling mill 7 (Para. [0045]; Fig. 1; the heating device is heating the sheet non-uniformly with the end regions higher temperature than the center).
Akashi fails to explicitly teach wherein the transverse-type full-width heating device heats the temperatures of the central portion in the width direction and the end portions in the width direction of the steel sheet on the entry side of the cold rolling mill to temperatures that are calculated from following expressions (1) and (2), the temperatures calculated from the expressions (1) and (2) being configured to change depending on an Si content α.
TC ≥ 0.1α4.5 + 15 (1)
TE ≥ 0.1α4.8 + 15 (2)
TC: Steel sheet temperature of a central portion in a width direction of a steel sheet on entry side of a rolling mill [° C.] TC ≤ 200° C.
TE: Steel sheet temperatures of end portions in a width direction of a steel sheet on entry side of a rolling mill [° C.] TE ≤ 200° C.
α: Si content [%] 0 <α ≤ 4.5
Akashi teaches the heating device is capable of doing as it can change the temperature non-uniformly across the width of the sheet (Fig. 1; Para. [0045]), but is silent about changing the temperature according to the silicon content.
Ueno teaches manufacturing of a cold-rolled steel sheet wherein the temperatures of the central portion in the width direction and the end portions in the width direction of the steel sheet on the entry side of the cold rolling mill are configured to change depending on an Si content α (Paras. [0003], [0030] and [0033]; the silicon content of the sheet is 3% which yields temperatures greater than or equal of 29.02 C centrally and greater than or equal to 34.51 C on the edge using the equations provided below, and Ueno teaches temperatures of 40-60 C centrally and 70-100 C on the edges at the entry of the mill which are equal to or greater than the temperatures according to the equations).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the manufacturing equipment of Akashi to include a heating device heating the sheet according to the silicon content as taught by Ueno so that the chances of cracks may be reduced (Ueno, Paras. [0003] and [0030]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Akashi teaches the equipment for manufacturing the cold-rolled steel sheet according to claim 12 (Fig. 1), wherein the transverse full-width heating device 6 changes the temperatures of the central portion in the width direction and the end portions in the width direction of the steel sheet on the entry side of the cold rolling mill 7 according to an Si content of the steel sheet (Fig. 1; Para. [0045]; it is noted that this is a system claim and therefore interpreted as the heating device is capable of changing the temperatures based on the Si content, which the heating device is capable of doing as it can change the temperature non-uniformly across the width of the sheet).
Regarding claim 16, modified Akashi teaches the equipment for manufacturing the cold-rolled steel sheet according to claim 12 (Fig. 1).
Akashi fails to explicitly teach the transverse-type full-width heating device is installed at a position within 10 m from the entry side of the cold rolling mill. Akashi teaches that the heating device is installed at an entry side of the cold rolling mill (Fig. 1; Paras. [0044]-[0045]), however Akashi is silent regarding the distance between the heating device and the mill.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating device of Akashi to be positioned within 10 m from the entry side of the cold rolling mill since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Akashi would not operate differently with heater at the claimed distance and since the heating device is meant to heat the sheet before entering the cold rolling mill the device would function appropriately having the claimed distance. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance between the heating device and cold rolling mill is within 10 m (Paras. [0030] and [0049]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Akashi teaches the equipment for manufacturing the cold-rolled steel sheet according to claim 13 (Fig. 1).
Akashi fails to explicitly teach the transverse-type full-width heating device is installed at a position within 10 m from the entry side of the cold rolling mill. Akashi teaches that the heating device is installed at an entry side of the cold rolling mill (Fig. 1; Paras. [0044]-[0045]), however Akashi is silent regarding the distance between the heating device and the mill.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating device of Akashi to be positioned within 10 m from the entry side of the cold rolling mill since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Akashi would not operate differently with heater at the claimed distance and since the heating device is meant to heat the sheet before entering the cold rolling mill the device would function appropriately having the claimed distance. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance between the heating device and cold rolling mill is within 10 m (Paras. [0030] and [0049]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Akashi teaches the equipment for manufacturing of the cold-rolled steel sheet according to claim 14 (Fig. 1).
Akashi fails to explicitly teach the transverse-type full-width heating device is installed at a position within 10 m from the entry side of the cold rolling mill. Akashi teaches that the heating device is installed at an entry side of the cold rolling mill (Fig. 1; Paras. [0044]-[0045]), however Akashi is silent regarding the distance between the heating device and the mill.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating device of Akashi to be positioned within 10 m from the entry side of the cold rolling mill since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Akashi would not operate differently with heater at the claimed distance and since the heating device is meant to heat the sheet before entering the cold rolling mill the device would function appropriately having the claimed distance. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance between the heating device and cold rolling mill is within 10 m (Paras. [0030] and [0049]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Akashi teaches the equipment for manufacturing the cold-rolled steel sheet according to claim 15 (Fig. 1).
Akashi fails to explicitly teach the transverse-type full-width heating device is installed at a position within 10 m from the entry side of the cold rolling mill. Akashi teaches that the heating device is installed at an entry side of the cold rolling mill (Fig. 1; Paras. [0044]-[0045]), however Akashi is silent regarding the distance between the heating device and the mill.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating device of Akashi to be positioned within 10 m from the entry side of the cold rolling mill since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Akashi would not operate differently with heater at the claimed distance and since the heating device is meant to heat the sheet before entering the cold rolling mill the device would function appropriately having the claimed distance. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance between the heating device and cold rolling mill is within 10 m (Paras. [0030] and [0049]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record alone or in combination fails to explicitly teach a method of heating the steel sheet using the transverse full-width heating device wherein the temperatures of the central portion in the width direction and the end portions in the width direction of the steel sheet on the entry side of the cold rolling mill are calculated from the expressions (1) and (2) being configured to change depending on the Si content, as recited in claim 8, upon which claim 9 depends.
Ueno teaches that depending on the amount of Si, i.e., more than 1%, the heating of the edges of the sheet need to be controlled to reduce the chances of cracking (Paras. [0003] and [0030]). However, while Ueno generally teaches controlling the heating based on the Si content, Ueno fails to explicitly teach “the specific expressions recited in claim [8]” (Remarks, P. 7) or that “[t]he required temperature rises exponentially…as Si content increases” (Id.) as required by the claims and argued by Applicant. Accordingly, claims 8-9 are allowable over the prior art because they require the temperature to be calculated using the specific expressions recited therein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments dated April 6, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112 and the rejection of claims 8-9 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn. It is noted that the amendments introduced a new 112 indefiniteness issue to claims 13 and 18-19, as discussed above.
Applicant's amendments and remarks regarding the rejections of claims 12-13 and 16-19 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive, however the claims are rejected maintaining the same rejection used for claims 14-15 which have been cancelled and incorporated into claim 12. Applicant’s arguments have focused on the method of controlling the temperature according to the expressions provided in claims 8 and 12 (Remarks, PP. 6-8). However, while claim 8 is a method claim in which the temperature must be controlled according to these equations, claims 12 is a system claim that recites equipment that is capable of heating the sheet according to the expressions. As discussed in MPEP 2115(II), “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The apparatus of Akashi covers the device recited in claim 12, as discussed above, and it is capable of heating the sheet in the recited manner due to the ability of the heater to heat the sheet non-uniformly. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
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 MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights