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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 2, 3, and 4 each contain multiple views that are not properly labelled. 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) says “Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter…”.
In Fig. 3-4, “Strip P lenght” should be corrected to –Strip P Length--.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 includes the limitation “at exit from said roughing stand” means in claim 1 on pg. 1, line 5. It is unclear what is “at exit from said roughing stand”. For the purposes of examination, the phrase will be interpreted as though it read – upon exit from said roughing stand--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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. Such limitations are:
“mechanical deformation detection means” in claim 1, 8. The load cell 40 is described as a corresponding structure (“in place of load cell 40, another mechanical deformation detection device can be used” Pg. 11, Lines 22-23, emphasis added) of mechanical deformation detection means. For the purposes of examination, “mechanical deformation detection means” will be interpreted as a load cell and equivalents
“thermal scanning means” in claim 5, 6. The thermal scanner 43 (“…. subjected to a thermal scan by means of a thermal scanner 43…” Pg. 15, Line 3) and thermal scanner 45 (“… subjected to another thermal scan by means of a thermal scanner 45…” Pg. 15, Line 13) are each described as performing a thermal scanning function. For the purposes of examination, corresponding structure is interpreted as the thermal scanner 43 and thermal scanner 45.
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:
“rapid heating device” in claim 1. Rapid heating device is defined by the specification as either comprising an induction furnace (“rapid heating device 28 comprises, for example, an induction furnace consisting of thermal induction modules which are able to be selectively activated, even independently of each other” Pg. 12, Lines 8-10) or comprising two thermal induction modules (“rapid heating device 28 comprises two first thermal induction modules 41” Pg. 12, Lines 11-12).
“command and control unit” in claim 1. The specification and drawings do not provide corresponding structure for a “command and control unit”.
“thermal induction module” in claim 2, 3, 4, 9. The specification does not provide corresponding structure beyond identifying thermal induction modules with reference characters “41” and “42”. While structure is identified by reference characters 41 and 42 in the drawings, it is unclear what that structure is. For the purpose of examination, corresponding structure for “thermal induction module” will be interpreted as an induction furnace.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“detection step” in claim 7.
“heating step” in claim 7.
“command step” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-6 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 includes the limitation “to reduce the thickness of an intermediate rolled product, … until said final strip is obtained” (emphasis added) on pg. 1, line 6-7. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the limitation means that the reduction of thickness by finishing rolling train is the final step for producing a strip and excludes any further processing structure. Examiner notes that Fig. 1 shows further processing structure indicated by reference characters 33 and 34. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as though it read “to reduce the thickness of an intermediate rolled product, …, until the thickness of said final strip is obtained”.
Claim 2 includes the limitation “first thermal induction modules” and claim 3 includes the limitation “second thermal induction modules”. These claims are indefinite over claim 1 because the relationship between these modules and the “thermal induction modules” of claim 1 is unclear. For the purposes of examination, “thermal induction modules” of claim 1 will include the first and second thermal induction modules.
Claim 3 includes the limitation “temperature of said intermediate rolled product to be obtained at exit from said heating device” (emphasis added) on lines 28-29 of pg. 1. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear how the temperature is to be obtained as no temperature measuring device has been claimed.
All claims dependent on rejected claims are likewise rejected
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoi (US 3,958,435).
Re Claim 7, Inoi discloses a rolling method, for producing a final strip starting from a slab having a certain starting thickness, the rolling method comprising:
providing a rolling plant (Fig. 5) comprising at least one walking beam heating furnace (heating furnace 11) configured to heat at least said slab to a certain starting temperature, and a finishing rolling train (see Fig. 5 illustrated above) disposed operatively in line with at least one roughing stand (see Fig. 5 illustrated above) and configured to reduce the thickness of an intermediate rolled product, at exit from said roughing stand, until said final strip is obtained; said finishing rolling train comprising at least one pre-finishing stand (see Fig. 5 illustrated above) able to reduce the thickness of said intermediate rolled product in order to obtain a pre-finished rolled product, and a plurality of finishing stands (see Fig. 5 illustrated above) able to reduce the thickness of said pre-finished rolled product in order to obtain said final strip,
wherein the rolling method further comprises at least one detection step in which, by means of mechanical deformation detection means (load cell 16, 17) directly associated at least with the last of said at least one pre-finishing stand (see Fig. 5 illustrated above), the rolling force applied on said pre-finished rolled product is detected (load cell 16, 17 detects the rolling force), at least one heating step in which, by means of a rapid heating device (intermediate heater 25) interposed between said at least one pre-finishing stand and said plurality of finishing stands (Fig. 5), said pre-finished rolled product is heated (intermediate heater 25 heats the rolled product), and a command step in which, by means of a command and control unit (system computer 21) connected both to said mechanical deformation detection means and also to said rapid heating device (Fig. 5), said rapid heating device (intermediate heater 25) is selectively activated at least as a function of said rolling force detected by said mechanical detection means, in order to thermally compensate for any cold zones and make the temperature of the bar uniform on its entire length (“The outputs of these components 14 through 19 are fed to a system computer 21. The output of the profile detector is fed to a data processing computer 22, whose output is fed to the system computer 21 and also to an alarm 23 and so on. Upon reception of the input signals, the system computer 21 sends a command S1 to the heating furnace 11 for rolling pitch adjustment and sampling temperature adjustment, a command S2 to a depressing position controller (APC) for depressing adjustment, commands S3 and S4 to an intermediate cooler 24 and an intermediate heater 25 for cooling water adjustment and heating oil adjustment,” Col. 6, Line 58 – Col. 7, Line 2).
Re Claim 8, Inoi discloses the rolling method as in claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), wherein in said detection step, said mechanical deformation detection means detect one or more impressions of said pre-finished rolled product to which there corresponds a greater resistance to deformation of the material which involves an increase in the rolling force exerted by said pre-finishing stand (The load cell 17 detects the increase in the rolling force).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoi (US 3,958,435), in further view of Rohde et. al. (US 5,611,232), hereinafter referred to as Rohde.
Re Claim 1, Inoi discloses a rolling plant (Fig. 5), for producing a final strip starting from a slab having a certain starting thickness, comprising at least one walking beam heating furnace (heating furnace 11) configured to heat at least said slab to a certain temperature (“the temperature TF1 can be controlled constant by using a heater means” Col. 4, Lines 19-20 and “target inlet temperature TF1” Col. 4, Lines 16-17), and a finishing rolling train (see Fig. 5 illustrated below) operatively disposed in line with at least one roughing stand (see Fig. 5 illustrated below) and configured to reduce the thickness of an intermediate rolled product, at exit from said roughing stand, until said final strip is obtained (In Col. 3, Lines 7-9, the strip is described as going from 25.6mm thick to 2mm thick during a part of the finishing stage); said finishing rolling train comprising at least one pre-finishing stand (see Fig. 5, illustrated below) able to reduce the thickness of said intermediate rolled product in order to obtain a pre-finished rolled product (“adjustment of the workpiece thickness in the roughing stage” Col. 1, Lines 15-16), and a plurality of finishing stands able to reduce the thickness of said pre-finished rolled product, in order to obtain said final strip (In Col. 3, Lines 7-9, the strip is described as going from 25.6mm thick to 2mm thick during a part of the finishing stage), wherein the rolling plant comprises mechanical deformation detection means (load cell 17) directly associated at least with the last of said at least one pre-finishing stand and able to detect the rolling force applied on said pre-finished rolled product, a rapid heating device (intermediate heater 25), interposed between said at least one pre-finishing stand and said plurality of finishing stands, for heating said pre-finished rolled product, and a command and control unit (system computer 21) connected both to said mechanical deformation detection means and also to said rapid heating device (Fig. 5) and configured at least to selectively activate said rapid heating device , at least as a function of the rolling force detected by said mechanical deformation detection means (“The outputs of these components 14 through 19 are fed to a system computer 21. The output of the profile detector is fed to a data processing computer 22, whose output is fed to the system computer 21 and also to an alarm 23 and so on. Upon reception of the input signals, the system computer 21 sends a command S1 to the heating furnace 11 for rolling pitch adjustment and sampling temperature adjustment, a command S2 to a depressing position controller (APC) for depressing adjustment, commands S3 and S4 to an intermediate cooler 24 and an intermediate heater 25 for cooling water adjustment and heating oil adjustment,” Col. 6, Line 58 – Col. 7, Line 2), in order to thermally compensate for any cold zones and make the temperature of the bar uniform on its entire length, wherein said rapid heating device (intermediate heater 25) is able to be selectively activated by said command and control unit (system computer 21) to carry out a localized over-heating in correspondence with impressions of said pre-finished rolled product, at least as a function of the greater resistance to deformation of the material which involves an increase in the rolling force (“The outputs of these components 14 through 19 are fed to a system computer 21. The output of the profile detector is fed to a data processing computer 22, whose output is fed to the system computer 21 and also to an alarm 23 and so on. Upon reception of the input signals, the system computer 21 sends a command S1 to the heating furnace 11 for rolling pitch adjustment and sampling temperature adjustment, a command S2 to a depressing position controller (APC) for depressing adjustment, commands S3 and S4 to an intermediate cooler 24 and an intermediate heater 25 for cooling water adjustment and heating oil adjustment,” Col. 6, Line 58 – Col. 7, Line 2), in order to increase the temperature of said impressions and make the temperature of said pre-finished rolled product uniform on its entire length.
PNG
media_image1.png
697
1280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See Fig. 5 of Inoi, illustrated
Inoi does not disclose that said rapid heating device comprises thermal induction modules
Rohde teaches that rapid heating device comprises thermal induction induction modules (induction heating unit 8a and 8b) to heat rolled stock (Col. 2, Lines 23-25)
Ioni contains a rolling plant which differs from the claimed rolling plant by the substitution of thermal induction modules with a gas heater. Rohde teaches a thermal induction module for heating rolled stock. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the intermediate heater of Inoi for the induction heating unit of Rohde and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the results of the substitution to be predictable.
Re Claim 2, Inoi, in view of Rohde, discloses the rolling plant as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and further discloses that said rapid heating device comprises first thermal induction modules (Rohde, induction heating unit 8a) able to be selectively activated and regulated by said command and control unit, as a function of the rolling force detected by said mechanical deformation detection means
Re Claim 3, Inoi, in view of Rohde, discloses the rolling plant as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and further discloses that that said rapid heating device comprises second thermal induction modules (Rohde, induction heating unit 8b) able to be selectively activated and regulated by said command and control unit, as a function of a certain target temperature of said intermediate rolled product to be obtained at exit from said heating device (“controlling the workpiece temperature at the inlet position of the second finishing stage to said target temperature obtained” Col. 8, Lines 41-43)
Re Claim 4, Inoi, in view of Rohde, discloses the rolling plant as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and further discloses that first thermal induction modules and said second thermal induction modules are of the transverse flow type (Rohde, Fig. 1).
Re Claim 6, Inoi discloses the rolling plant as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), comprising first thermal scanning means (thermometer 14) disposed upstream of said rapid heating device (Fig. 5) and configured to thermally scan said prefinished rolled product (thermometer 14).
Re Claim 9, Inoi discloses the rolling method as in claim 8, wherein in said rapid heating step, said rapid heating device (intermediate heater 25) is selectively activated by said command and control unit (system computer 21) to carry out a localized over-heating in correspondence with said impressions of said pre-finished rolled product, at least as a function of the greater resistance to deformation of the material which involves an increase in the rolling force (“The outputs of these components 14 through 19 are fed to a system computer 21. The output of the profile detector is fed to a data processing computer 22, whose output is fed to the system computer 21 and also to an alarm 23 and so on. Upon reception of the input signals, the system computer 21 sends a command S1 to the heating furnace 11 for rolling pitch adjustment and sampling temperature adjustment, a command S2 to a depressing position controller (APC) for depressing adjustment, commands S3 and S4 to an intermediate cooler 24 and an intermediate heater 25 for cooling water adjustment and heating oil adjustment,” Col. 6, Line 58 – Col. 7, Line 2), in order to increase the temperature of said impressions and make the temperature of said pre-finished rolled product uniform on its entire length.
Inoi fails to disclose first thermal induction modules of said rapid heating device.
Rohde teaches that rapid heating device comprises first thermal induction modules (induction heating unit 8a) to heat rolled stock (Col. 2, Lines 23-25)
Ioni contains a rolling plant which differs from the claimed rolling plant by the substitution of thermal induction modules with a gas heater. Rohde teaches a thermal induction module for heating rolled stock. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the intermediate heater of Inoi for the induction heating unit of Rohde and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the results of the substitution to be predictable.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoi, in view of Rohde, as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Soderlund (US2011/0208345)
Re Claim 5, Inoi, in view of Rohde, discloses the rolling plant as in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and further discloses a formula to determine the temperature at the exit from rapid heating device (“obtaining a workpiece targe[t] temperature at the inlet position of the second finishing stage from the mean workpiece temperature calculated out from the crown model formula” Col. 8, Lines 37-41).
Inoi, in view of Rohde, fails to disclose thermal scanning means configured for the transverse thermal detection of said pre-finished rolled product
Soderlund teaches thermal scanning means (thermoscanner 8) and configured for the transverse thermal detection of said pre-finished rolled product (“The temperature determination device is advantageously a thermoscanner, which is installed movable transversally to the direction of the strip movement” [0012]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Inoi, in view of Rohde, to incorporate the thermal scanning means of Soderlund at the exit from rapid heating device and configured for the transverse thermal detection of said pre-finished rolled product so the thermal scanning means can move in a transverse direction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating the thermal scanning means of Soderlund.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the 112(f) interpretation of “command and control unit”, filed May 11th, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As to applicant’s argument that “unit” is not a nonce word or generic placeholder, the word “unit” is listed in MPEP 2181 (I)(A) as a generic placeholder. As to applicant’s argument that “command and control unit”, Examiner can not find examples in the art of persons of ordinary skill using that phrase. As to Applicant’s argument that the specification provides corresponding structure, being connected to the load cell does not define the structure of the command and control unit and being able to selectively and individually command defines the command and control units function, not its structure.
Applicant’s arguments on the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), see pg. 11-13, filed May 11th, 2025, with respect to the rejections in paragraphs 12-15, 18-25, and 27 of Examiner’s first action on the merits and have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments that “to reduce the thickness of an intermediate rolled product ... until said final strip is obtained” in claim 1 is definite filed May 11th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s drawings (Figs. 3-6) shows that the final strip (marked with the reference character P) is not obtained until after the showers (reference character 34) and thereby creates confusion with claim 1 which implies that the final strip is created during the finishing rolling train. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand final strip to refer to the strip product having all the characteristics of the final strip including the final temperature enacted by the showers, not merely the final thickness and dimensions.
Applicant's arguments filed May 11th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Amended claim 1 is directed to a rolling plant for producing a final strip from a slab, wherein the plant uses mechanical deformation detection means (e.g., load cells) directly associated with the last pre-finishing stand to detect an increase in rolling force caused by cold zones or "skid marks" on the pre-finished rolled product. Based on this force detection, a rapid heating device comprising thermal induction modules is selectively activated by a command and control unit to carry out localized over-heating precisely at the positions of the impressions to make the temperature of the pre-finished rolled product uniform on its entire length. This is a fundamentally different, more precise approach to skid mark remediation than anything disclosed in the cited prior art.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Inoi (U.S. Patent No. 3,958,435) does not anticipate amended claim 1 because Inoi fails to disclose the following limitations of amended claim 1. First, amended claim 1 recites that the rapid heating device "comprises thermal induction modules able to be selectively activated by said command and control unit to carry out a localized over- heating in correspondence with impressions of said pre-finished rolled product." Inoi's intermediate heater 25 is a gas-fired or oil-fired heater (the Examiner noted that Inoi's plant differs from the claimed plant by the use of a gas heater rather than thermal induction modules). Inoi's intermediate heater 25 is not a rapid heating device comprising selectively activatable thermal induction modules as required by claim 1. The Examiner confirmed this gap for the § 103 rejection of claims 2-4 by citing Rohde to supply the missing induction module teaching. Accordingly, "thermal induction modules able to be selectively activated by said command and control unit to carry out a localized over- heating in correspondence with impressions of said pre-finished rolled product" is absent from Inoi and cannot support a § 102 anticipation rejection of amended claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Inoi in view of Rohde.
Second, amended claim 1 recites that the thermal induction modules carry out "localized over-heating in correspondence with impressions of said pre-finished rolled product, at least as a function of the greater resistance to deformation of the material which involves an increase in the rolling force." Inoi's system uses load cells 16/17 to measure total reaction forces for a mathematical profile model, not to detect "greater resistance to deformation of the material which involves an increase in the rolling force," which is caused by cold zones.
First, Inoi uses load cells 16/17 for reasons additional to developing a mathematical model. The rolling force measured by load cells 16/17 are used to control the heating provided by the intermediate heater. Second, resistance to deformation is proportional to the rolling force. Therefore, by performing heating as a function of the rolling force, the apparatus of Inoi is also performing heating as a function of the resistance to deformation.
In Inoi, the load cells feed a system computer that sends commands for general rolling pitch and temperature adjustment, not for localized impression-specific over-heating. There is no teaching or suggestion in Inoi of using the rolling force increase caused by cold impressions (skid marks) to trigger localized, targeted induction over-heating precisely at those impression zones to compensate for them.
First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “impression-specific overheating”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Second, The claim language says “localized overheating in correspondence with impressions”. Impressions cause a greater resistance to deformation, which causes a change to the rolling force. Therefore, because the apparatus of Inoi conducts heating as a function of the rolling force, the apparatus of Inoi conducts heating in correspondence with impressions. Furthermore, such heating is localized as on the impression is no longer detected, the rolling force goes down and the heating decreases.
Thus, Inoi does not anticipate amended claim 1 at least because it fails to disclose: (1) a rapid heating device comprising selectively activatable thermal induction modules, and (2) localized over-heating in correspondence with impressions as a function of the greater resistance to deformation detected via increased rolling force. Applicant respectfully requests that the § 102 rejection of claim 1 be withdrawn.
Examiner agrees to the first point, but disagrees as to the second for the reasons given above.
The Examiner rejected claims 2-4 and 9 as obvious over Inoi in view of Rohde, asserting that Rohde teaches thermal induction modules (induction heating units 8a, 8b) for heating rolled stock, and that it would have been obvious to substitute Inoi's intermediate heater 25 for the induction heating unit of Rohde. Even if one were to combine Inoi and Rohde, the combination still fails to teach or suggest the localized, impression-targeted over-heating driven by detected increases in rolling force that is recited in amended claim 1 (on which claims 2-4 and 9 depend). Rohde teaches induction heating units for heating rolled stock, but does not teach the targeted activation of thermal induction modules based on mechanical detection of impressions via load cells associated with the pre-finishing stands. The combination of Inoi and Rohde merely substitutes one type of general intermediate heater for another; it does not teach or suggest the localized, impression-targeted over-heating driven by detected increases in rolling force recited in claim 1. Accordingly, amended claim 1 patentably defines over Inoi in view of Rohde.
Examiner disagrees for the reasons given above
Original claim 5 requires "thermal scanning means disposed at exit from said rapid heating device and configured for the transverse thermal detection of said pre-finished rolled product." The Examiner acknowledged that Inoi fails to disclose thermal scanning means configured for transverse thermal detection at the exit of the rapid heating device, and relied on Soderlund's thermoscanner 8 (movable transversely to the direction of strip movement) for this teaching. Neither Inoi nor Soderlund teach (1) a rapid heating device comprising selectively activatable thermal induction modules, and (2) localized over- heating in correspondence with impressions as a function of the greater resistance to deformation detected via increased rolling force. Accordingly, amended claim 1 patentably defines over Inoi in view of Soderlund. In view of the foregoing, the § 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1-6 should be withdrawn.
Inoi, in view of Rohde and Soderlund, teach all the limitations of claim 5
Independent claim 7 recites (1) "the rolling force applied on said pre-finished rolled product is detected," (2) "said pre-finished rolled product is heated," and (3) "said rapid heating device is selectively activated at least as a function of said rolling force detected by said mechanical detection means, in order to thermally compensate for any cold zones and make the temperature of the bar uniform on its entire length" and should be found to define over Inoi in view of Rohde or Soderlund for reasons similar to those already discussed above.
The limitations of claim 7 do not distinguish for the reasons given above
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 WILLIAM D DICKSTEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at 5712701477. 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.
/W.D.D./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights