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. Status of Claims Claims 1-9 are pending and presented for examination on the merits. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement One (1) information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 06/16/2023 . The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. 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 s 4-7 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 4, t he terms “small” (“small height-diameter ratio”), “large” (“large taper”), and “high-efficiency” (“high-efficiency exothermic compound”) are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “small,” “large,” and “high-efficiency” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what ratio qualifies as sufficiently small to satisfy the claim term or too big to fall outside the claim scope. It is also unclear how large of a taper is required to meet the claim term or how small the taper would need to be to fall outside the claim term. Additionally, it is unclear the threshold of efficiency needed for a compound to be a high-efficiency exothermic compound. Further regarding claim 4, the phrase “a section is in a multi-edge design” is indefinite because the scope cannot be ascertained. The phrase lacks clarity because it is unknown how the phrase modifies the mold. It is not apparent from the claims or specification the meaning of the phrase “ multi-edge design ” and to what section or aspect of the mold must have a multi-edge design. Regarding claim s 5 and 6 , t he terms “ slow ” (“ slow forging ”) and “ fast ” (“ fast forging ”) are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “ slow ” and “ fast ” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what speed qualifies as adequately s low to satisfy the claim term or insufficiently slow to fall outside the claim scope. It is also unclear how fast forging must be performed to meet the claim term or how slow the forging would need to be to fall outside the claim term. Regarding claim 7, the claim is likewise rejected, as it requires all limitations of parent claim 5. Further r egarding claim 7, t he term “slow ly ” (“slow ly cooled ”) is a relative term which render s the claim indefinite. The term “slow” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what speed qualifies as adequately slow cooling to satisfy the claim term or insufficiently slow to fall outside the claim scope. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 104593691 (A) to Yang et al. (“ CN ʹ691 ”) (abstract and computer-generated translation are attached) . Regarding claim 1, CN ʹ691 discloses a method for manufacturing a roller sleeve for a forged alloy steel support roller (method for manufacturing back up roll). Abstract. Para. [0002], [0004]. The method includes the following steps: (a) refining steel ingots by smelting them (preparing raw steel materials according to chemical components in weight percentages for the back up roll, obtaining a steel ingot according to a smelting procedure production process) (para. [0018]); (b) forging a roll blank (preparing a roller blank from the steel ingot according to a forging procedure production process) (para. [0019], [0020]); (c) conducting a pre-heat treatment and final heat treatment (performing thermal treatment on the roller blank) (para. [0021] -[ 0024]); and (d) finishing the roller sleeve to the required dimensions to produce a large forged alloy steel support roller sleeve and evaluating the performance of the sleeve (processing and detecting the roller blank to obtain the back up roll) (para. [0024] , [0029], [0030] , [0069] ; Table 1 ) . The roller sleeve contains 4.50-6.00% by mass Cr (Cr5 steel). Para. [0005], [0014]. The surface hardness ranges from 55 to 75 HSD, with some specific examples showing ranges as narrow as 66-69 (equal-hardness). Table 1 – Example 4. 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. 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. Claim s 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ʹ691 , as applied to claim 1 above. Regarding claim s 2 and 3 , CN ʹ691 discloses that the roller includes the following chemical constituents in percent by mass (abstract; para. [0012], [0033]): Element Claim 2 CN 104593691 (A) C 0.40 - 0.70 0.40 - 0.80 Si 0.20 - 0.80 0.20 - 1.20 Mn 0.20 - 0.80 0.20 - 1.00 Cr 4.00 - 5.00 3.00 - 8.00 Ni 0.20 - 0.60 ≤ 0.8 Mo 0.10 - 0.80 0.15 - 1.50 V 0.10 - 0.50 0.05 - 0.40 P ≤ 0.015 ≤ 0.02 Si ≤ 0.015 ≤ 0.02 Fe balance remainder inevitable impurity present present Element Claim 3 CN 104593691 (A) C 0.55 - 0.60 0.40 - 0.80 Si 0.40 - 0.45 0.20 - 1.20 Mn 0.35 - 0.38 0.20 - 1.00 Cr 4.50 - 5.00 3.00 - 8.00 Ni 0.20 - 0.60 ≤ 0.8 Mo 0.60 - 0.70 0.15 - 1.50 V 0.20 - 0.30 0.05 - 0.40 P ≤ 0.015 ≤ 0.02 Si ≤ 0.010 ≤ 0.02 Fe balance remainder inevitable impurity present present The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select from among the prior art ranges because there is utility over an entire range disclosed in the prior art. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ʹ691 , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 103436802 (A) to Yang et al. (“ CN ʹ802 ”) ( abstract and computer-generated translation are attached ) , US 2011/0174457 (A) to Abraham et al. (“ Abraham ”), and further in view of US 3,025,153 (A) to John Cross (“ John Cross ”) and CN 104525889 (A) to Wang et al. (“ Wang ”) . Regarding claim 4 , CN ʹ691 discloses a refining step in which raw materials are initially smelted in an electric arc furnace, placed into an LF (ladle furnace) refining furnace, and then casting molten steel into steel ingots (smelting steel raw materials by using an electric arc furnace and a ladle furnace, injecting molten iron into steel ingot mold to form the steel ingot). Para. [0018], [0039]. CN ʹ691 does not teach a step of performing degassing in vacuum or conducting casting in a vacuum environment . CN ʹ802 is directed to a method of manufacturing a hot roll. Abstract; para. [0002], [0011]. In the refining step, the molten steel is in a LF refining furnace and degassed under vacuum. Para. [0033]. The refined steel is then poured and cast into ingots. Para. [0033]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have conducted a vacuum degassing step in the LF refining step because the step would remove gaseous impurities in the steel, thereby improving the purity and cleanliness of the ingots cast therefrom. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to conduct the casting in a vacuum to decrease the quantity of atmospheric impurities that fall within or absorb into the molten steel. CN ʹ691 does not teach steps of testing chemical components in the ladle furnace. Abraham is directed to a process for optimizing steel fabrication. Abstract. The process provide s management and optimization of the treatment of the steel and ladle . Para. [0029]. The process includes a step of testing a sample of the steel in the ladle to determine the concentration of dissolved elements. Claim 11. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated a sample testing step into the method of CN ʹ691 , as modified by CN ʹ802 , prior to degassing because testing helps the user verify whether the chemical composition of the steel conforms to the desired composition and complies with predetermined specifications of alloying proportions in the roller sleeve. CN ʹ691 teaches casting (para. [0018]), but does not specify the dimensions of the mold, its design, and whether the riser comprises an exothermic compound. John Cross is directed to a heat-producing mixtures for use in the production of castings and ingots from molten metal. Col. 1, lines 10-12. A hot top or riser is part of the mold for the purpose of maintaining a reservoir of molten metal that delays solidification and compensates for shrinkage of the casting as it solidifies , preventing formation of cavities or fissures in the cast metal . Col. 1, lines 13-21. The riser is provided with a composition made of ingredients that will react exothermically at the temperature of the molten metal, and the heat generated is sufficient to delay solidification. Col. 1, lines 22-27. Wang is directed to a method of making a steel roll. Abstract; para. [0002]. To make the roll, molten steel is poured into a roller body mold, and a riser is attached. Para. [0036], [0039], [0084]; Figure 1. The body of the mold has a height , various diameters due to the tapering at the top and bottom , and edges where the tapered section joins the center portion of the mold . Figure 1 – reference characters 2, 3, 4, and 5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a riser containing exothermic compound in the casting step of CN ʹ691 because a riser would control the shrinkage and lower the number of cavities and fissures in the case metal. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected an ingot mold, such as the shape shown in Wang, because the cylindrical morphology approximates the final shape of a roller used as a support for a working roller. Furthermore, the differences in or the selection of size, proportion, and/or shape do not patentably distinguish claimed objects from prior art objects, absent persuasive evidence of significance of the difference. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)-(B). Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 8 and 9 are 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 and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claim 8, CN ʹ691 discloses a heat treatment in which the sleeve blank is pre-heated, induction hardened, tempered, and air cooled. Para. [0021] -[ 0024], [0044]-[0047] . CN ʹ691 does not teach the hardening sequence steps and parameters recited in claim 8, including, but not limited to, the water quenching. Therefore, CN ʹ691 does not teach or suggest the invention as claimed. With respect to claim 9 , CN ʹ691 discloses a roller sleeve having a surface hardness of 55-75 HSD and an inner hardness of 35-45 HSD. Para. [0029]. The metallographic structure is tempered martensite. Para. [0069]. CN ʹ691 does not teach the claimed depth and uniformity of hardness, and CN ʹ691 does not disclose a thermal treatment (e.g., claim 8) for achieving the recited hardness uniformity and depth . Therefore, CN ʹ691 does not teach or suggest the invention as claimed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT VANESSA T. LUK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3587 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Keith D. Hendricks , can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1401 . 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. /VANESSA T. LUK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733 March 21, 2026