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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/21/23 and 9/23/25 have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 16-27 in the reply filed on 6/1/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 16-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kushida et al. (JP 2009241133 A), as machine translated, in view of Ritter et al. (EP 0496726 A2), as machine translated.
Regarding claim 16, Kushida teaches that “the present invention aims to provide a rolling production line for steel wire rods and a method for manufacturing steel wire rods that can produce desired steel wire rod products.” (which reads upon “a system (1) for thermomechanically rolling long steel semi-finished products (2), comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0006]). Kushida teaches that “in this rolling production line 1, the following are arranged in order from upstream to downstream: a heating furnace 3 for heating steel materials, a descaler 4, a roughing mill 5, an intermediate row rolling mill 6, a finishing rolling mill 7, and a winding machine 8” (which reads upon “a first rolling unit (5)”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0013]; intermediate row rolling mill 6). Kushida teaches that “the finishing rolling mill 7 consists of two rolling mills: a block mill 10 (VBM) located downstream of the intermediate row rolling mill 6, and a sizing mill 11 (RSM) located downstream of the block mill 10” (which reads upon “a first thermomechanical sizing block (8) arranged downstream of the first rolling unit”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0014]; block mill 10). Kushida teaches that “three cooling means 9a, 9b, and 9c for cooling the steel wire rods 2 are arranged in order from upstream between the intermediate row rolling mill 6, block mill 10, sizing mill 11, and winding machine 8” (which reads upon “a first cooling device (6) arranged between the first rolling unit (5) and the first thermomechanical sizing block (8), a second cooling device (11) arranged [after] the first thermomechanical sizing block”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0015]). Kushida teaches that “the steel wire rod 2, after the final rolling, is cooled by the third cooling means 9c, wound into a ring shape by the winding machine 8, and transported downstream by the conveyor” (which reads upon “and a coil winding device (13) arranged downstream of the separating device (14)”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0017]).
Kushida is silent regarding a separating device (14) arranged downstream of the first thermomechanical sizing block (8), and that the second cooling device is arranged before the separating device. However, as the steel wire rod is not sold in an infinite length, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a separating device is present.
Ritter is similarly concerned with a continuously cast strand of material is rolled into a wire with a predetermined cross-section, the wire is subjected to subsequent continuous cooling and then a predetermined manufacturing length of the wire is wound (paragraph [0001]). Ritter teaches “a system comprising a continuous casting device, in particular a casting wheel, a wire rolling section downstream of the casting device and equipped with drive devices, to which a wire cooling section is connected, wherein a shear for cutting off a predetermined production length is connected upstream and/or downstream of the wire rolling section” (which reads upon “a separating device (14) arranged downstream of the first thermomechanical sizing block, a coil winding device (13) arranged downstream of the separating device”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0012]). Ritter teaches that “the deflection device 10 may be preceded by a cutting device (not shown) in which the wire is cut to length according to a desired production length” (which reads upon “a separating device (14) arranged downstream of the first thermomechanical sizing block (8);a second cooling device (11) arranged between the first thermomechanical sizing block (8) and the separating device (14)”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0027] and FIG. 1 showing that deflection device 10 is downstream of finishing mill 6 and cooling device 9). Ritter teaches that “the illustrated embodiment can be modified in various ways within the framework of the general inventive concept, in particular with regard to the type and arrangement of the scissors used for cutting the material to length, as well as the design and number of winding devices” (paragraph [0037]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kushida to include a cutting device, as taught by Ritter to cut the wire to length according to a desired production length.
Regarding claims 17-18, modified Kushida teaches the apparatus of claim 16 as stated above. Kushida teaches that “the finishing rolling mill 7 consists of two rolling mills: a block mill 10 (VBM) located downstream of the intermediate row rolling mill 6, and a sizing mill 11 (RSM) located downstream of the block mill 10” (paragraph [0014]; sizing mill 11). Kushida teaches that “three cooling means 9a, 9b, and 9c for cooling the steel wire rods 2 are arranged in order from upstream between the intermediate row rolling mill 6, block mill 10, sizing mill 11, and winding machine 8” (paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claims 19-22, modified Kushida teaches the apparatus of claim 16 as stated above. Kushida teaches that “in controlling the surface temperature of the steel wire rod, it is preferable to provide a cooling means for water-cooling the steel wire rod” (paragraph [0009]). Kushida teaches that “each cooling means 9a, 9b, and 9c is equipped with multiple cooling zones, each having multiple cooling nozzles inside” (paragraph [0016]). Kushida teaches that “in particular, the third cooling means 9c is equipped with four cooling zones 15a, 15b, 15c, and 15d” (paragraph [0016]). Kushida teaches that “each cooling zone 15a to 15d is arranged side by side in the direction of transport with a predetermined interval between them” (paragraph [0016]). Kushida teaches that “the surface temperature of the steel wire rod 2 drops rapidly due to the cooling water in the cooling nozzle of the first cooling zone 15a” (paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 24, modified Kushida teaches the apparatus of claim 16 as stated above. Kushida is silent as to the orientation of the coil posts of winding machine 8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143 I E. Here, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose between using a vertical orientation of the coil posts of winding machine 8 or aligning the coil posts of winding machine 8 to the rotational axis of the coil. Both are well known in the art and taught in relevant textbooks.
Regarding claim 25, modified Kushida teaches the apparatus of claim 17 as stated above. Kushida is silent as to the number of stands in block mill 10 and sizing mill 11. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143 I E. Here, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose between using any reasonable finite number of stands, such as two, four, or six, for example.
Regarding claims 25-27, modified Kushida teaches the apparatus of claim 16 as stated above. Kushida teaches that “the rolling production line 1 is equipped with a control device 14 that controls the heating furnace 3, descaler 4, roughing mill 5, intermediate row rolling mill 6, finishing mill 7, winding machine 8, and cooling means 9” (paragraph [0013]). Kushida teaches that “the steel wire rod 2 will be manufactured, and in manufacturing the steel wire rod 2, temperature control (management) of the steel wire rod 2 downstream from the third cooling means 9c is extremely important in determining the quality of the steel wire rod 2” (paragraph [0017]; downstream of the second cooling device). Kushida teaches that “in the present invention, the surface temperature of the steel wire rod 2 is controlled downstream of the third cooling means 9c” (paragraph [0018]; temperature must be measured in order to be controlled). Kushida teaches that “the temperature difference ΔT1 was determined from the actual data measured by a thermometer” (paragraph [0025]; surface temperature thermometer reads on electro-magnetic measuring device).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kushida et al. (JP 2009241133 A), as machine translated, and Ritter et al. (EP 0496726 A2), as machine translated, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Benedetti (US 20030084974 A1).
Regarding claim 23, modified Kushida teaches the apparatus of claim 17 as stated above. Kushida is silent as to the number of stands in block mill 10 and sizing mill 11. Regarding the subject limitation, in order to carry out the invention of Kushida, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary amounts of number of stands used in rolling mills.
Benedetti is similarly concerned with the hot rolling of elongated product, such as steel bars (paragraph [0002]). Benedetti teaches that “the apparatus includes, in-line, and downstream of a hot rolling mill train, a thermocontrolled rolling device including a controlling temperature device and a sizing mill, shears, a quenching box, optionally an induction heater, a layers preparation system where layers of cut stock, such as bars, are consolidated prior to transfer to an annealing furnace, and thereafter to a cooling bed” (paragraph [0005]). Benedetti teaches that “the casting/mill entry area A of the plant includes that area of the plant beginning with the continuous casting equipment 12 and extending essentially to the entrance to the roughing mill stand 16 of the rolling mill 14” (paragraph [0034]). Benedetti teaches that “as shown, the rolling mill 14 contains sections comprising a roughing mill section 112, an intermediate mill section 114 and a finishing mill section 116, each of which sections contains a plurality of rolling mill stands 118 disposed in-line along a roll pass line 120 identified by a dot-dash line” (which reads upon “wherein the first thermomechanical sizing block (8.1) is of one-, two-, four-, six- and/or eight-stand design, and wherein the second thermomechanical sizing block (8.2) is of one-, two-, four-, six- and/or eight-stand design”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0045] and FIG.s 8-9; a plurality of rolling mill stands 118 reads on a two-, four-, six- and/or eight-stand design). Benedetti teaches that “as shown, the rolling mill stands 118 in the respective mill sections are arranged for the rolling of billets 18 produced by the continuous casting equipment 12 whereby, as shown, the axes of the roll sets of adjacent stands 118 in the respective mill sections 112, 114 and 116 are mutually perpendicularly offset, as is common in the production of elongated metal products, such as bars and rods, or the like, in order to accurately size and shape the product being rolled” (paragraph [0046]). Benedetti teaches that “the illustrated rolling mill 14, [] may include more or less than the number of rolling mill sections shown, as well as more or less than the number shown of mill stands 118 in each rolling mill section” (paragraph [0046]). Benedetti teaches that for example “the next product to be rolled requires the use of eight new stands” (which reads upon “eight-stand design”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the block mill and sizing mill of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the number of stands in each mill, such as within the claimed values, as taught by Benedetti, motivated to form conventional rolling mills using known and tested numbers of stands predictably suitable for rolling steel applications.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hagedorn et al., Handbook of Coil Winding, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, 2018, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-54402-0. Hagedorn teaches that “the coil posts can be arranged vertically or aligned to the rotational axis of the coil, and that for the machine design, this is an important point of preliminary consideration, as the position of the posts must be accurately adjusted with respect to the to the motion sequence of the wire guide (page 183). Hagedorn is considered pertinent to at least claim 24.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights