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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I, claims 12-20 in the reply filed on 06/01/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). The non-elected claims 21-25 have been withdrawn from prosecution in this application by Applicant in the response.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the separating device recited in claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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 12-20 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 12 recites the limitation "a third cooling device (14), arranged between the first thermomechanical sizing block (11) and the cooling-bed, ring-laying, and/or coil-winding device (16); and a structure-sensor device (17), arranged between the first thermomechanical sizing block (11) and the cooling-bed, ring-laying, and/or coil-winding device (16)," in lines 12-17. The manner in which the limitation is written appears to make the claim confusing in that both the “third cooling device (14)” and “structure-sensor device (17)” are disposed between the first thermomechanical sizing block (11) and the cooling-bed, ring-laying, and/or coil-winding device (16) and therefore it appears the “third cooling device (14)” and “structure-sensor device (17)” overlap each other position-wise, and even if they do not overlap, then what is the order of the arrangement of the “third cooling device (14)” and the “structure-sensor device (17)” is arranged first between the first thermomechanical sizing block (11) and the cooling-bed, ring-laying, and/or coil-winding device (16) and/or what is their relative spatial orientation off. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite since the metes and bounds are unascertainable.
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.
Claims 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitoshi et al. (JP2009241133, also see The Espacenet English Machine Translation Version “EEMTV”) in view of Peyton et al. (US Patent No. 10,144,987).
Regarding claims 12 and 15, Hitoshi et al. teaches a system (i.e. production line 1, see figure 1 and also see “EEMTV”: para [0001]-[0003]) for thermomechanical rolling of long semi- finished steel products into steel wire rod (2, see figure 1 and “EEMTV”: para [0013]),comprising: a first rolling unit (i.e., rolling mill 6, see figure 1 and “EEMTV”: para [0013]-[0014]); a second rolling unit (i.e., rolling mill 10, see figure 1 and “EEMTV”: para [0013]-[0015]), arranged downstream of the first rolling unit (6); a first thermomechanical sizing block (i.e., sizing mill 11, see figure 1 and “EEMTV”: para [0013]-[0015]), arranged downstream of the second rolling unit (10); a second cooling device (9b, see figure 1 and “EEMTV”: para [0013]-[0015]) arranged between the second rolling unit (10) and the first thermomechanical sizing block (11); a coil-winding device (i.e., winding machine or reel 8 see figure 1 and “EEMTV”: para [0013]-[0015], and [0021]), arranged downstream of the first thermomechanical sizing block (11); a third cooling device (9c see figure 1 and “EEMTV”: para [0015]-[0016]), arranged between the first thermomechanical sizing block (11) and the coil-winding device (8).
Hitoshi et al. fails to teach a structure-sensor device, arranged between the first thermomechanical sizing block and the cooling-bed, ring-laying, and/or coil-winding device that is configured to directly determine a martensitic structure in the thermomechanically rolled long semi-finished steel product or in the wire-shaped and/or rod-shaped steel during an ongoing process.
Peyton et al. teaches a hot roll system for producing a steel product (see Peyton et al., figure 1 and column 1, lines 10-34) wherein a microstructure sensor device in the form of electromagnetic sensor (120, see Peyton et al., figure 1 and column 4, lines 16-65) is arranged between a thermomechanical sizing block (i.e., sizing and shaping roll (110, see Peyton et al., figure 1 and column 4, lines 16-25) that is configured to directly determine a microstructure of the rolled steel product, the microstructure including martensitic structure (see Peyton et al., column 4, lines 26-48) in the thermomechanically rolled steel product (see column 4, lines 16-65 and column 7, lines
4-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Hitoshi et al. to arrange a structure-sensor device between the first thermomechanical sizing block and the coil-winding device as taught by Peyton et al. to provide the function and advantage of monitoring the microstructural phase transformation occurring in the steel material during the rolling process to enable the cooling rate being applied or to be applied to be controlled and consequently ascertaining the microstructure of the final product obtained in the rolling process perform by the rolling system.
Regarding claim 13, Hitoshi et al. in view of Peyton et al. teaches a system further comprising: a first cooling device (9a, see Hitoshi et al. figure 1 and “EEMTV”: para [0013] and [0015]-[0016]), arranged between the first rolling unit (6, see Hitoshi et al. figure 1) and the second rolling unit (10, see Hitoshi et al. figure 1), wherein the structure-sensor device (120, see Peyton et al., figure 1 and column 4, lines 16-65) is configured to determine a proportion of microstructure mixture to include martensite in percent by area (see Peyton et al., column 4, lines 40-48) .
Regarding claim 14, Hitoshi et al. in view of Peyton et al. teaches a system in which the structure-sensor device (120, see Peyton et al., figure 1 and column 4, lines 16-65) is arranged directly upstream of a cooling zone (i.e., reads on the claimed cooling-bed) with cooling nozzles (125, see Peyton et al., figure 1 and column 4, lines 16-48).
Regarding claim 16, Hitoshi et al. in view of Peyton et al. fails to teach a system that comprises a second thermomechanical sizing block arranged between the first thermomechanical sizing block (11, see Hitoshi et al., see figure 1 and “EEMTV”: para [0013]- [0015])) and the third cooling device (9c see Hitoshi et al., figure 1 and “EEMTV”: para [0015]- [0016]). However, modifying the system of Hitoshi et al. in view of Peyton et al. to include a second thermomechanical sizing block in the manner as claimed would have meant a mere duplication of parts. Furthermore, with reference to MPEP 2144.04.VI.B which pertains to the obviousness of duplication of parts, similar to the instantly-claimed thermomechanical sizing block and that taught by Hitoshi et al. in view of Peyton et al., the court held that, Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In this instant case the selection to increase the number of thermomechanical sizing block from one to two as claimed for the purposes effectively controlling the shape and size of the rolled steel product would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding claim 18, Hitoshi et al. in view of Peyton et al. teaches a system in
which the second cooling device (9b, see Hitoshi et al, figure 1 and “EEMTV”: para
[0013] and [0015]- [0016]), comprises three water tanks that are spaced apart from one
another but fails to teach at least four cooling water tanks that are arranged
spaced apart from one another as claimed. The instant claim only differs from Hitoshi et al. in view of Peyton et al., by using more cooling water tanks, which by itself would constitutes a mere duplication of parts. Furthermore, with reference to MPEP 2144.04.VI.B which pertains to the obviousness of duplication of parts, similar to the instantly-claimed cooling water tanks and that taught by Hitoshi et al. in view of Peyton et al., the court held that, Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In this instant case the selection to increase the number of water tanks from three to at least four as claimed for the purposes effectively cooling the rolled steel product would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding claim 19, Hitoshi et al. in view of Peyton et al. is silent with respect to the stand design type for the first and second thermomechanical sizing block (i.e., sizing mill 11, see figure 1 and “EEMTV”: para [0013]- [0015]); however, the thermomechanical sizing block as shown in Hitoshi et al. would reasonably be expected to be at least in the form of one-stand type. Furthermore, Hitoshi et al. in view of Peyton et al. meets the claim because the sizing mill (11) of Hitoshi et al. which reads on the claimed thermomechanical sizing block would reasonably be expected to be in the form of one of the stand design types recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 20, Hitoshi et al. in view of Peyton et al. teaches a system that comprises a controls device (14, see Hitoshi, figure 1 and EEMTV”: para [0013], [0024],[0031], [0032]) that is communicatively coupled to the cooling devices (9, 9a, 9b, 9c, 9d), temperature sensors (12, 13 and 16, see Hitoshi, figure 1) the plurality of rolling units (5, 6, 10, see Hitoshi, figure 1) and the thermomechanical sizing block (11, see Hitoshi, figure 1) for setting and controlling the cooling temperatures and the rolling temperatures at every stage of the rolling process; while Peyton et al. teaches a control means (600, see Peyton et al., figure 6 and column 9, lines 9-53) that is communicatively coupled to the structure-sensor device (120, see while Peyton et al., figure 1column 4, lines 15-25, column 7, lines 20-46, and column 9, lines 9-53). Therefore Hitoshi et al. in combination with Peyton et al. encompasses the scope of the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Hitoshi et al. and Peyton et al., either considered individually or as combined differs from the instant claimed invention by failing to teach and/or adequately suggest as in claim 17 a system that further comprises an intermediate cooling device arranged between a first thermomechanical sizing block and a second thermomechanical sizing block.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tachibana et al. (US 8,945,319), Arvedi (US 7,832,460), Benedetti (US 6,464,927) and Ohlert et al. (US 2010/0175452) are also cited in PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ABOAGYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8165. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
/M.A/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights