DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II claims 12-18 with claim 1 being generic in the reply filed on 3-17-2026 is acknowledged. The restriction is made final.
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 1 and 12-18 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 1 recites the limitation "the presence" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, line 5 claims "substantially perpendicular" it is not possible to determine a scope of the limitation because it would include running directions which are not perpendicular.
Regarding claim 1, lines 6 and 12, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the transmission" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The language “characterised by” in line 11 is a literal translation into English from a foreign document is an idiomatic error.
Claim 1, lines 14-17 sets forth a longitudinal direction X “and/or” a vertical direction Z “and/or” a rotation axis Y “and possibly” a transverse direction Y. It is not clear what a scope of these direction X,Y and Z directional limitations are since the “and/or” and “possibly” language does not make it clear what directions are necessary. The direction Y is set forth as an axis of rotation and is also claimed as a transverse direction, it is not clear what direction it is transverse to when the X direction and Z direction are set forth using the “and/or” terminology.
Since the longitudinal direction X is claimed as an “and/or” it is not clear if it is necessary and therefore the claim 18 limitation “compartments extending longitudinally” is not clear if it is necessary and it brings into question how the compartments are actually oriented.
Claim 1, line 21, the language “said at least one pair” is not clear since it is not claimed what the pair comprises, compartments? Or another new limitation.
Claim 1, lines 33 and 34 claims the longitudinal running direction X “and/or” the vertical direction Z “and/or” rotation about the axis Y. It is not clear what a scope of the these directions X,Y and Z directional limitations are since the “and/or” language does not make it clear what directions are necessary.
Claim 1, lines 38 and 39, the recitation “parallel to the transverse direction Y” is not clear since the Y direction is set forth with “possibly” language in claim 1, line 16. Additionally, the Y direction is claimed as an axis of rotation and is also claimed as a transverse direction, it is not clear what direction it is transverse to when the X direction and the Z direction is set forth using “and/or” language.
Claim 1, lines 44 and 45 claims the longitudinal running direction X “and/or” the vertical direction Z “and/or” rotation about the axis Y. It is not clear what a scope of the these directions X,Y and Z directional limitations are since the “and/or” language does not make it clear what directions are necessary.
Claim 12 is claimed as “A grasping tool suitable for the implementation of the method according to claim 1. It is not clear if claim 12 is further limiting the method of claim 1. Since generic claim 1 is a method, the preamble of claim 12 should be amended to “The method according to claim 1 comprising a grasping tool” or similar language which further limits claim 1. Claims 13-18 preambles should be amended in the same way since they depend from claims 1 and 12.
Regarding claim 12, lines 2 and 5 (two occurrences), the phrase "intended for" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 12, lines 4 and 5, “at least one first compartment” and “a second compartment” are not clear since a first compartment and a second compartment are set forth in claim 1, lines 19 and 20. It is not clear if the claim 12 first and second compartment are supposed to be --the first compartment-- and --the second compartment-- or are new limitations.
Claim 12 has instances where antecedent basis needs to be corrected for work roll and rolling mill limitations that have been previously set forth in claim 1, the corrections are as follows:
Claim 12, line 9, “a work roll” should be --the work roll--.
Claim 12, line 10, “a work roll” should be --the work roll--.
Claim 12, bridging lines 15 and 16, “a worn work roll” should be --the worn work roll--.
Claim 12, line 16, “a new work roll” should be –the new work roll--.
Claim 12, line 17, “a worn work roll” should be --the worn work roll--.
Claim 12, line 17, “a rolling mill” should be --the rolling mill--.
Claim 12, line 18, “the roll” should be --the worn work roll--.
Claim 12, line 20, “a new work roll” should be --the new work roll--.
Claim 12, line 20, “a rolling mill” should be --the rolling mill--.
Regarding claim 13, lines 3,4 and 5, the phrase "intended for" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, line 4, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, bridging liens 9 and 10, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, line 5, there is an open parenthesis “(“ but no closing one so it is not clear if this is a typo.
Regarding claim 18, lines 4 and 10, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
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) 1,12,13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (11,364,525) in view of Kwon (KR 20160139698). Yang discloses a method for replacing work rolls (8) in a rolling mill (Fig. 8) the work rolls (8) have axes along a Y direction (push in direction; Fig. 8), the work roll axes are perpendicular to a running direction (X, through the mill between the work rolls 8; Fig. 8) of a metal strip (col. 1, lines 20-23) and have contact generatrices in contact with intermediate rolls (upper intermediate rolls and lower intermediate rolls; labeled in Fig. 3 and shown in Fig. 8). The replacement method comprises step /A/ providing a robotic handling system (1) including a grasping tool (clamping heads; 2,3) which has at least one pair of compartments (bracket grooves to match the work rolls; col. 5, lines 19-23) for the work rolls (8), the pair of compartments extend longitudinally parallel to one another (Fig. 6) and comprise a first compartment (3) for a worn work roll (col. 5, lines 63-64) including a first gripping system (clampers; col. 3, lines 49-55 and col. 5, lines 16-18) and a second compartment (2) for a new work roll (8; col. 5, lines 54-55) including a second gripping system (clampers; col. 3, lines 49-55 and col. 5, lines 16-18), the pair of compartments (2,3) are configured to simultaneously hold the worn work roll and the new work roll since there are four compartments for two pairs of work rolls (8). In step /B/ the second compartment (2) is loaded with a new work roll (8; col. 5, lines 54-55) and the first compartment (3) does not contain a work roll (it is empty; col. 5, line 56). In step /C/, the rolling mill is stopped and opened to space apart the upper work roll (col. 5, lines 47-48; Fig. 7) and the lower work roll. In step /D/ the first compartment (3) is aligned with a worn work roll to be replaced (col. 5, lines 63-65). In step /E/ the worn work roll (8) is grasped by the first gripping system and extracted from the rolling in a direction Y (Fig. 11, left arrow; old roll pulling-out direction) which is perpendicular to the running direction X. Regarding step /I/ Yang replaces the new work roll in the push-in axial direction (Fig. 11). Yang does not disclose that the grasping tool is movable in an axis of rotation about the push-in and pull-out axial direction and about an axis transverse to the push-in and pull-out axial direction as claimed in step /H/. Kwon (KR 20160139698) teaches a robotic roll handling system (10,20,30,70,90) for replacing rolls (R1,R2; Figs. 7,8 and 16) in a 20-hi cluster mill (Fig. 1) which rolls metal strip in the strip running direction (X, left to right through the rolling mill; Fig. 1) comprising robotic grasping tools (70,90) that are configured to extract the rolls (R1,R2) and exchange the rolls axially (Figs. 7 and 8) along an axial roll direction (Y) with new rolls stored on the change carriage (10,20,30). The change carriage (30) is movable along the axial roll direction (Y) to position the grasping tools (70,90) at the rolling mill and the grasping tool (70) is configured to move transversely to the axial roll direction (joints 50,60; [0019],[0020]) and in rotation about the axial roll direction (rotation by shaft, 40; [0021],[0022]). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to move the robotic handling system of Kwon in rotational and transverse directions relative to the push-in and pull-out axial direction of Yang so as to position the compartments of the grasping tool of Yang at a position to extract rolls and replace rolls with multi-dimensional positioning so as to make the system more robust to avoid interference with rolling mill plant structure.
Regarding claim 12, Yang discloses a method for replacing work rolls comprising a grasping tool (clamping heads; 2,3) which has at least one pair of compartments (bracket grooves to match the work rolls; col. 5, lines 19-23) for the work rolls (8), the pair of compartments extend longitudinally parallel to one another (Fig. 6) and comprise a first compartment (3) for a worn work roll (col. 5, lines 63-64) including a first gripping system (clampers; col. 3, lines 49-55 and col. 5, lines 16-18) and a second compartment (2) for a new work roll (8; col. 5, lines 54-55) including a second gripping system (clampers; col. 3, lines 49-55 and col. 5, lines 16-18) but does not disclose actuating cylinders. Kwon teaches actuating cylinders () that are configured to move the grasping tool (70) for inserting and extracting work rolls. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the grasping tool fixing clamps of Yang to be driven by hydraulic cylinders as taught by Kwon so as to position the grasping tool for pushing in and pulling out the work rolls by hydraulic force.
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Yang discloses a method for replacing work rolls comprising a grasping tool which has two pairs of compartments (2,3; Fig. 6) for a total of four compartments that are constructed to handle new and worn work rolls and to exchange the worn work rolls for new work rolls.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 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 and any intervening claims. The prior art of record does not disclose a unique actuating cylinder, to proceed with the selective movement of the gripping systems of the different compartments with the selective movement of the first gripping system and of the second gripping system of the at least one pair of compartments consisting of the first compartment and the second compartment, a mechanism for ensuring coupling of a movable drive portion of the actuating cylinder selectively with the gripping systems of the different compartments, selectively with the first gripping system or the second gripping system including the limitations of base claim 1 and intervening claim 12 and overcoming the 35 USC 112b rejections.
Claim 16 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 and any intervening claims. The prior art of record does not disclose that the compartments for the worn roll(s) and the new roll(s) are arranged in parallel around a central axis of the grasping tool, the grasping tool comprising a drum forming a support frame including longitudinal cradles, angularly distributed around the central axis configured to receive the worn and new rolls, respectively defining said compartments and wherein the drum is configured to pivot about the central axis, including the limitations of base claim 1 and intervening claim 12 and overcoming the 35 USC 112b rejections. Claim 18 would be allowable as it depends from allowable claim 16.
Claim 17 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 and any intervening claims. The prior art of record does not disclose that the independent load/unload systems comprise for each compartment, a pair of gripping arms comprising a first arm and a second arm, configured to switch from a closure position for which the two arms hold a work roll in the cradle, and up to an opening position for which the two arms are spaced apart by a distance larger than a diameter of the work roll enabling loading /or unloading of the cradle throughout the lateral opening, including the limitations of base claim 1 and intervening claims 12 and 15 and overcoming the 35 USC 112b rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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
Prosecution Insights