DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Siegerist (2,720,242). Siegerist discloses a roll unit (13; Fig. 8) comprising vertical rollers (15,19) with roll axles (99,110; Fig. 7) that are supported on a bottom part (bed, 1), the vertical rollers (15,19) are configured to contact a width of elongate bars (col. 1, lines 17-22) to straighten the bars, wherein (Figs. 4 and 8) illustrate a flat wire (bar, T) with flat sides being straightened by the rollers (15,19) as it moves longitudinally lengthwise (left to right; Fig. 4) between the rollers (15,19). Siegerist discloses that a holder (291; Fig. 8) comprising a top plate (305) and a bottom plate (311) is positioned at a top and bottom of the bar (T), parallel to the bar to hold and confine the bar vertically as it passes between the rollers (col. 6, lines 54-56) wherein Fig. 4 shows that the holder (291) top plate (305) extends an entire length of the roller (15). The holder (291) is secured to the bottom part (bed, 1; Fig. 8). Regarding claim 2, Siegerist discloses a first holding plate (305) disposed on a first surface of the bar on top of the bar in the thickness direction and a second holding plate (311) disposed on an opposed, bottom second side of the bar in the thickness direction.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegerist (2,720,242) in view of Hara et al. (JP 2008-071983). Siegerist does not disclose that the holding part includes a holding plate contacting a first surface of the bar and a holding roller contacting the opposite side of the bar. Hara teaches [0024] that a plate (21; Figs. 7 and 8) is pressed by a cylinder actuator (22) against a top surface of a rectangular bar (flat wire; 18) and a roller (19) is configured to come into contact with an opposite, bottom surface of the rectangular bar (18) and Hara teaches a pair or rollers (16) contacting a width of the rectangular bar. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify at least one of the pair of leveling rollers of Siegerist to include a plate contacting the wire surface across from a roller contacting the bar surface as taught by Hara in order to hold the top surface of the bar in place as it is being leveled in the width direction by leveling rollers.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegerist (2,720,242) in view of Endo et al. (JP 2007-44734). Siegerist discloses another roller leveler (V, Fig. 4) which is different than the first roller leveler (H) but Siegerist does not disclose that the another roller leveler is located before the first roller leveler. Endo teaches (Fig. 1b) that it is known to provide horizontally arranged rollers (12) in a first leveler to roll a top and bottom of a wire (11) followed by vertically arranged rollers (15b) in a second leveler following the first leveler. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to position the vertical rollers of Siegerist after the horizontal rollers as taught by Endo since it is an obvious matter of design choice to roll a width or height of a bar first.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegerist (2,720,242) in view of Tazoe et al. (5,634,360). Siegerist discloses a roll unit (13; Fig. 8) comprising vertical rollers (15,19) with roll axles (99,110; Fig. 7) that are supported on a bottom part (bed, 1), the vertical rollers (15,19) are configured to straighten elongate bars (col. 1, lines 17-22) wherein (Figs. 4 and 8) illustrate a square bar (T) being straightened by the rollers (15,19) as it moves longitudinally lengthwise (left to right; Fig. 4) between the rollers (15,19). Siegerist discloses that a holder (291; Fig. 8) comprising a top plate (305) and a bottom plate (311) is positioned at a top and bottom of the bar (T), parallel to the bar to hold and confine the bar vertically as it passes between the rollers (col. 6, lines 54-56) wherein Fig. 4 shows that the holder (291) top plate (305) extends an entire length of the roller (15). The holder (291) is secured to the bottom part (bed, 1; Fig. 8). Siegerist does not specifically recite that the top plate (305) and bottom plate (311) are spaced with an interval greater that the bar thickness. Tazoe teaches plate guides (5,7; Fig. 3) wherein guide plates (5) are spaced a distance (W1) that is greater than a strip width by 10-20 mm and guide plates (7) are spaced a distance (W0) that is greater than a strip width by 50-200 mm (col. 6, lines 5-11). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to space the plate guides of Siegerist at a slightly wider distance than a thickness of the bar so as to confine the bar without creating drag on the strip as it passes through the plate guides.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10-15-2025 have been fully considered. The Examiner is making the assumption that Applicant is taking the claim language “entire extent” from drawings 1A and 1D because the specification cite is a length of the holding plate can cover the area where the first rollers and second rollers are arranged (page 6, lines 5-8) and Siegerist shows in Fig. 4 that the top plate (305) covers an area where the bar is longitudinally moving between the rollers (15,19) and that the top plate extends lengthwise an extent of the diameter of the roller (15).
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 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