DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in France on 4-10-2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 2300247 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 2-4-2026 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 1-12 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 1, line 1, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
In claim 1, line 2, “or even sets of rollers” is claimed, it is not clear what a scope of “even sets” is since only work rolls are claimed which are set forth to be a pair and could be construed to be a single set of rolls. Intermediate rolls and backup rolls are not set forth and it is not clear if the sets of rollers are a necessary part of the invention. This language is repeated in claim 1, lines 6 and 8.
In claim 1, lines 7 and 9, the language “on the one hand” and “on the other hand” are a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the maintenance" bridging lines 8 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear what maintenance would be since “can be extracted” is recited in line 8 and this is a possibility, not a positively recited limitation.
In claim 1, line 10, “or even motorisation means” is claimed, it is not clear what a scope of “motorisation” is since a motor is not set forth and it is not clear if the motorization is a necessary part of the invention.
Claim 1, lines 11,15 and 17 recite the limitation "the inclination". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, line 13, the phrase "typically" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, line 15, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, line 6, 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 7, line 2, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
In claim 9, bridging lines 2 and 3 the language “including to the lower work roll or even to said sets of lower rollers” is indefinite since sets of lower rollers have not been set forth in claim 1.
In claim 9, bridging lines 4 and 5 the language “including to the lower work roll or even to said sets of upper rollers” is indefinite since sets of upper rollers have not been set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, line 2, the phrase "intended to be arranged" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, line 3, the phrase "preferably substantially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Substantially symmetrically is not symmetrically.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a mechanism for articulation” in claim 1, line 12; “an actuator configured to change” in claim 1, lines 15; “a first coupling part rigidly connected” in claim 5, line 2 and “a second coupling part rigidly connected” in claim 5, line 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1,2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balve et al. (5,715,720) in view of Pizzedaz (4,272,976). Balve discloses a set of rolls (1,2) comprising work rolls that define a roll gap (K) for rolling material (bar or strip) and at least one spray bar (13,14; 15,16, col. 2, lines 52-55) configured for cooling or lubricating located near the roll gap (Fig. 3). Balve discloses a roll stand including roll stand housing (3,4) for housing the set of rolls (1,2) and a maintenance window which is an opening between the roll stand housings (Fig. 2) on a first side and a second side of the roll stand housing, transverse to the direction (S), wherein when either of the spray bars (13,14; 15,16) are pivoted away from the work rolls about crossbar (10) the roll set (1,2) “can be extracted” through the maintenance window in a direction opposite to the spray bar that is not pivoted. Balve discloses at least one device (7,13a,14a,17,18) for adjusting an inclination (pivot angle about the crossbar 10; Fig. 3) of the at least one spray bar (13,14; 15,16) according to a pivot link (9b; Fig. 2) that is a mechanism for articulation, wherein the device for adjusting the inclination (7,13a,14a,17,18) is configured to pivot the spray bar in a direction perpendicular to a strip movement direction. An actuator (17,18) comprising a hydraulic cylinder (col. 2, line 57) is configured to change the inclination of the spray bar around the pivot axis (10; Fig. 3)
Balve does not specifically recite a means for supplying the at least one spray bar with fluid. Pizzedaz teaches a roll stand (30) including a housing (40) for a work roll set (42,44) and a backup roll set (46,48), the work rolls having a roll gap for rolling strip material (36). Pizzedaz teaches a device (66,86; Fig. 3) for adjusting an inclination of a spray bar (84) for pivoting the spray bar away from a plane of the material and away from a maintenance window (70; col. 5, lines 1-5 and 17-22) in a direction perpendicular to the strip movement direction (travel, pivoting arrow; Fig. 3). A hydraulic actuator (86) is configured to pivot a spray beam (66) carrying the spray bar (84). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to connect a fluid supply tube to the spray bar of Balve as taught by Pizzedaz so as to supply fluid to the spray bar from a fluid source.
Regarding claim 2, Balve discloses that the actuator (17,18) of the at least one device for adjusting the inclination is not uncoupled from the spray bar (13,14; 15,16) when the spray bar is extracted from near the work rolls and pivotable through the maintenance window and Pizzedaz teaches that the spray bar is attached to a means for supplying (72) the spray bar with fluid (col. 5, lines 7-12) that is a tubular shaft coupled to the spray bar (84; Fig. 3) wherein the means for supplying (72) and the actuator (86) are pivotable.
Regarding claim 12, Pizzedaz teaches that the means for supplying fluid (72) is located on a second side (right side; Fig. 3) of the roll stand and a first side (left side; Fig. 3) does not have the means for supplying fluid, it is an obvious matter of design choice to include a spray bar on only one side of roll stand to spray a delivery side of the rolls and strip upon exit from the mill.
Claim(s) 1 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger et al. (5,558,017) in view of Balve et al. (5,715,720). Berger discloses a plurality of sets of rolls (1-13; Fig. 1) comprising a set of work rolls (1,8) that define a roll gap between the work rolls for rolling strip material (B), a set of lower intermediate rolls (2,2a; 9,9a), a set of upper intermediate rolls (3,3a,4; 10,11,11a) and a set of backup rolls (5,5a,6,6a; 12,12a,13,13a) and at least one spray bar (17,18; col. 3, lines 21-24) for cooling or lubricating located near the roll gap. Berger discloses a roll stand including a roll stand housing (7,14) for housing the set of rolls and a maintenance window which is an opening between the roll stand housings (Fig. 1) on a first side (left side; Fig. 1) and a second side (right side; Fig. 1) of the roll stand housing (7,14), through which any spray bar extraction maintenance (can be extracted; claim 1, line 8) is performed since the roll housing parts are movably spaced apart. Berger discloses at least one device (15”,16) for adjusting inclination of the spray bar comprising a pivot (col. 3, lines 19-21) according to a pivot link (curved arrow on device 15”; Fig. 1) that is a mechanism for articulation, wherein the device for adjusting the inclination (15”,16) is configured to pivot the spray bar (17,18) in a direction about the pivot axis (16) perpendicular to a strip movement direction. Regarding claim 9, the housing parts (7,14) and separable vertically and are clamped together by a clamping means (40; Fig. 4) to transmit a clamping force to the rolls. Regarding claim 10, Berger discloses a 20 hi cluster mill (Fig. 1) comprising upper and lower work rolls, upper and lower first intermediate rolls, upper and lower second intermediate rolls and upper and lower bearing rolls. Regarding claim 11, Berger discloses first and second lower bars pivotable lower bars (21”) and first and second pivotable upper bars (15”) which are disposed symmetrically (Fig. 1) to a clamping plane (E), the bars (15”,21”) being pivotable and configured to support the work rolls (1,8) when the housing parts (7,14) are spaced apart. Berger does not disclose an actuator to pivot the spray bar about the pivot axis.
Balve teaches an actuator (17,18) comprising a hydraulic cylinder (col. 2, line 57) that is configured to change the inclination of the spray bar around the pivot axis (10; Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to pivot the device for adjusting the inclination of the spray bar of Berger with a hydraulic actuator as taught by Balve in order to move the device for adjusting the inclination with a piston cylinder actuator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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 tube is coaxial to the tubular shaft, as well as to the pivot axis, and wherein the actuator connects the stand to a lever of the adjustment device, extending radially to the tube, the actuator being configured to cause the change in inclination of the bar around the pivot axis by a transmission of a rotary torque to the lever and to the tube of the supply means, the tube being constrained to rotate with the spray bar; including the limitations of base claim 1 and intervening claim 2 and overcoming the 35 USC 112b rejection. Claims 4-7 would be allowable as they depend from allowable claim 3.
Claim 8 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 articulation mechanism comprises a first arm rigidly connected to a support of the stand, in a first state, which is pivotably articulated via a first bearing ring at a first end of the tubular shaft of the spray bar, on the first side, and a second arm rigidly connected to the support is pivotably articulated via a second bearing ring to the tube and driven by the actuator, the removable connector allowing the uncoupling of the bar and of the tube being arranged between the two arms, the removable connector is configured so as to allow the uncoupling and the extraction of the bar through the maintenance window, after passage into a second state of the first arm in which it is uncoupled from the support on the first side, and while the second arm remains coupled to the support on the second side; including the limitations of base claim 1 and intervening claim 2 and overcoming the 35 USC 112b rejection.
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