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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 5 lines 1, 2, and 4, and Page 6 line 25 uses mixed conventions for indicating values with decimals. That is, sometimes the Specification uses a comma to denote a decimal (0,25mm), and sometimes the specification uses a dot (0.050 mm). Please use consistent conventions for decimals.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren (CN 2552617 Y) in view of Iwatani et al (NPL U).
As to claim 1, Ren teaches a guide roller for hot wire rolling (Page 1, Technical Field: “This utility model belongs to metal non-cutting pressure processing in the field of rolled steel rolling guide roll structure technology.”), the guide roller including a wire guiding surface (as shown in Ren Fig 4, the guide roller surface is the exterior of roller (6)).
PNG
media_image1.png
348
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
506
392
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ren does not teach a method for manufacturing the guide roller.
Rather, Ren teaches the guide roller is made of an aluminum alloy having a hard outer surface.
However, methods of manufacturing aluminum parts with hard outer layers were known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed. See Iwatani which teaches a method of laser cladding Fe-Cr-C alloys on A5052 Aluminum using laser cladding.
Iwatani teaches the method comprising the steps of: providing a guide roller made of an Al alloy (Iwatani’s substrate is A5052 Aluminum Alloy. The structure of the guide roller is provided by Ren’s teaching of an aluminum guide roller), and applying a coating onto at least a part of the wire guiding surface by a metallic wire Direct Energy Deposition (DED) operation and/or a metallic powder DED operation (Iwatani teaches applying a Fe-Cr-C coating to the Aluminum by laser cladding, which is a DED operation. In Section 2, Iwatani teaches the use of Fe-Cr-C powder).
Iwatani is analogous art under MPEP § 2141.01(a) as being pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that is, the provision of a hard layer to an aluminum substrate. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have manufactured the guide roller of Ren by the method of Iwatani. See MPEP § 2143 D which describes the prima facie obviousness of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In this case, the known technique is the applying of Fe-Cr-C powder as layers onto an aluminum substrate by laser cladding for the purpose of providing a hard outer layer. The known device is the aluminum guide roller of Ren having a hard outer layer. The predictable result is the formation of the device of Ren by a laser cladding operation.
As to claim 2, Ren in view of Iwatani teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the metallic wire and/or the metallic powder is any of a Ni based alloy, a Co based alloy or a Fe based alloy (Iwatani teaches at section 2. Experimental Procedure: “As the base cladding material, Fe–Cr–C alloy powder, which was reported to have a good adhesion to aluminum alloy, was used.” The powder is Fe based as shown in table 1, since Fe is the “balance” of mass percent.).
As to claim 3, Ren in view of Iwatani teaches the method according claim 1, wherein the step of applying the coating includes applying more than one layer by use of DED (Iwatani teaches the applying of layers (plural) at section 3.1: “General views and cross sectional micrographs of clad layers are shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.”).
As to claim 4, Ren in view of Iwatani teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the step of applying the coating is done with a varied application speed (as shown for example at table 2, Iwatani uses at least four different seeds, 5, 10, 15 and 20 mm/2).
As to claim 6, Ren in view of Iwatani teaches the method according claim 1, wherein the DED operation is any of laser cladding, plasma transferred arc (PTA), electron beam melting (EBM) or selected laser melting (SLM) (Iwatani teaches laser cladding).
As to claim 7, Ren teaches a guide roller for hot wire rolling (Page 1, Technical Field: “This utility model belongs to metal non-cutting pressure processing in the field of rolled steel rolling guide roll structure technology.”), the guide roller comprising: a guide roller ring made of an Al alloy (Ren’s inner ring 6 is made of aluminum, see Page 3 line 3), the ring having a wire guiding surface for receiving wire (as shown in Ren Fig 4, the guide roller surface is the exterior of ring (6)), and a coating covering at least a part of the wire guiding surface (outer ring 5). Ren does not teach the coating being applied by a DED operation.
Rather, Ren teaches the guide roller is made of an aluminum alloy having a hard outer surface, but not the structure of having been applied by a DED operation.
However, aluminum parts with hard outer layers were known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to be coated by a DED operation. See Iwatani which teaches a method of laser cladding Fe-Cr-C alloys on A5052 Aluminum using diode laser cladding.
Iwatani is analogous art under MPEP § 2141.01(a) as being pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that is, the provision of a hard layer to an aluminum substrate. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have manufactured the guide roller of Ren by the method of Iwatani. See MPEP § 2143 D which describes the prima facie obviousness of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In this case, the known technique is the applying of Fe-Cr-C powder as layers onto an aluminum substrate by laser cladding for the purpose of providing a hard outer layer. The known device is the aluminum guide roller of Ren having a hard outer layer. The predictable result is the formation of the device of Ren by a diode laser cladding operation.
As to claim 8, Ren in view of Iwatani teaches the guide roller according to claim 7, wherein the coating is made of any of a Ni based alloy, a Co based alloy or a Fe based alloy (this is considered to be a Markush grouping. Iwatani teaches at section 2. Experimental Procedure: “As the base cladding material, Fe–Cr–C alloy powder, which was reported to have a good adhesion to aluminum alloy, was used.” The powder is Fe based as shown in table 1, since Fe is the “balance” of mass percent.).
As to claim 9, Ren in view of Iwatani teaches the guide roller according to claim 7, wherein the coating has a radial thickness with a value of from 0.25mm to 2 mm (while Ren teaches the outer diameter A of the roller as compared to the diameter of the aluminum ring C, Ren does not give specific values of the thickness of the ring 5. Iwatani teaches the clad material is on the order of 1mm thick, as shown in Fig 9(a) which illustrates the clad layer and the Al substrate) having a 1mm scale.
As to claim 10, Ren in view of Iwatani teaches a wire rolling machine comprising a guide roller according to claim 7 (Ren teaches a machine useful for wire rolling at Fig 1, for example.).
As to claim 11, Ren in view of Iwatani teaches a wire rolling machine comprising a guide roller which has been manufactured by the method according to claim 1 (Ren teaches a machine useful for wire rolling at Fig 1, for example.).
As to claim 12, Ren in view of Iwatani teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the Fe based alloy is a stainless steel (Iwatani’s Fe-Cr-C is a stainless steel.).
As to claim 13, Ren in view of Iwatani teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the step of applying the coating includes applying 2-20 layers by use of DED (Iwatani section 3.3 paragraph 2 teaches the layer thickness is from 5 to 100 microns. As shown in Fig 9(a), the clad thickness if ~1mm. 1mm / 100 microns is 10. Thus Iwatani teaches ~10 layers of clad coating.).
As to claim 14, Ren in view of Iwatani teaches the guide roller according to claim 8, wherein the Fe based alloy is a stainless steel (Iwatani’s Fe-Cr-C is a stainless steel.).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren in view of Iwatani as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Zuo et al. (CN 1351919 A).
As to claim 5, Ren in view of Iwatani teaches the method according to claim 4, but does not teach the application speed is varied by decreasing the speed at least one time during application of the coating.
However, in the field of cladding wire rollers, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for variations in the speed of coating. See Zuo which teaches laser classing manufacturing of high-speed wire roller equipment (Title). Zuo abstract teaches some manufacturing parameters: “using laser cladding method for manufacturing the roller work layer, blank surface of each track cladding 2-5 layers, each layer of the overlapping area 11-15 the path overlapping between layers is 40-60 %, the cladding speed by rolling wheel blank rotary table is 360-720 [rpm].”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have decreased the speed at least one time during application of the coating. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure that a radially outward portion of the rolling surface achieves the same coverage as a radially inward portion of the surface. This is necessary since a radially outward surface has a faster linear speed than a radially inward surface since both travel at the same rpm. To ensure an even cladding thickness, the speed of the application must be changed based on the distance the surface is from the center of rotation. Zuo teaches the cladding is known to be performed anywhere from 360 to 720 rpm. 360 rpm is a decreased speed from 720 rpm.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 13 November 2025