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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim1-3 and 13-15are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jens et al (EP 3479916; hereinafter Jens).
The applied reference has a common assignee and/or inventor(s) with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
As per claim 1, Jens discloses An operating method for a rolling line comprising a number of rolling stands for rolling a flat rolled product [Abstract; rolling line; rolling stands; flat rolled stock], wherein a control device of the rolling line:
accepts actual variables of the flat rolled product before the rolling of the flat rolled product in the rolling line and target variables (Z) of the flat rolled product after the rolling of the flat rolled product in the rolling line, wherein the target variables (Z) comprise at least one desired profile value (C) of the flat rolled product, which characterizes the deviation of the thickness (d) of the flat rolled product at a predetermined distance (a) from the edges of the flat rolled product from a center thickness (d0), which the flat rolled product has in the center between the edges [Abstract; actual variables; target variables (Z); page 2, paragraphs 6-7; profile value; page 3, paragraph 4; “… a deviation of the variables expected …”; page 6, paragraph 8; “… at least the deviation of the expected values E1 determined …”; page 2, paragraph 6; “… where xx indicates the distance from the edge of the flat rolled stock …”; page 5, paragraph 4; “… but the thickness d(0) …”],
determines an ideal contour course (ci) of the flat rolled product over the rolled product width (b) on the basis of the target variables (Z) [Abstract; the contour (K); page 2, paragraph 18 – page 3, paragraph 1; “The detection of the contour can be done directly and directly by measurement.”; page 5, paragraph 13; “… it is possible for the control device 3 to determine the contour K on the basis of other detected variables.”; page 7, under claims – paragraph 4; “… the contour (K) over the width (b) of the flat rolled stock …”],
determines setpoint values (COM) for manipulated variables for the rolling stands of the rolling line on the basis of the actual variables (I) of the flat rolled product and the ideal contour course (ci) using a model of the rolling line [Abstract; “The control device (3) determines the setpoint values (S *) …”; page 3, paragraph 4; “The control device preferably determines the setpoint values for the manipulated variables …”; Abstract; “ … using a model …”; page 4, paragraph 3; “In a step S4, the control device 3 implements a model 10 …”], and
transmits the determined setpoint values (COM) to the rolling stands of the rolling line so that the flat rolled product is rolled in the rolling line in consideration of the transmitted setpoint values (COM) [Abstract; “The control device (3) transmits the setpoint values (S *) to the rolling stands (1), …”],
wherein the control device determines the setpoint values (COM) for the manipulated variables by means of the model such that a contour course (ce) expected for the flat rolled product after the rolling of the flat rolled product in the rolling line is exclusively approximated as well as possible to the ideal contour course (ci) in an initial center area when viewed over the rolling product width (b), which extends toward the edges of the flat rolled product up to initial area boundaries, which have a distance greater than the predetermined distance (a) from the edges of the flat rolled product [Abstract; “The control device (3) determines the setpoint values (S *) in such a way that expected sizes (E1) for the flat rolled stock (2) after rolling of the float rolled stock (2) in the rolling line approximate as far as possible to the target sizes (Z) become.”], or the expected contour course (ce) is also approximated to the ideal contour course (ci) outside the initial center area in addition to the initial center area but only insofar as it is possible without impairing the approximation of the expected contour course (ce) to the ideal contour course (ci) in the initial center area [page 4, paragraph 13; “The two regions 11, 11' are symmetrical with respect to the center of the flat rolled stock 2. The respective outer boundary of the two regions 11, 11' is generally removed by approximately 100 mm to approximately 200 mm from the respective outer edge of the flat rolling stock 2. The width of the regions 11, 11' is usually also about 100 mm to about 200 mm.”].
As per claim 2, Jens discloses wherein the control device accepts the initial area boundaries or the distance (a1) of the initial area boundaries from the edges of the flat rolled product [page 4, paragraph 12; “The profile value K1 is commonly referred to in the art as Cxx, where xx indicates the distance a1 from the edges of the flat rolled stock 2 in millimeters. As a rule, the distance a1 is set at 25 mm or 40 mm. Accordingly, the corresponding profile values K1 in the prior art are usually referred to as C25 and C40. In principle, however, other values are possible.”].
As per claim 3, Jens discloses wherein the control device determines the initial area boundaries or the distance (a1) of the initial area boundaries from the edges of the flat rolled product using the actual variables (I) of the flat rolled product before the rolling of the flat rolled product in the rolling line and/or the predetermined distance (a) [page 2, paragraph 6; “The profile value is usually referred to as Cxx, where xx indicates the distance from the edge of the flat rolled stock in millimeters.”; page 4, paragraph 12; “The profile value K1 is commonly referred to in the art as Cxx, where xx indicates the distance a1 from the edges of the flat rolled stock 2 in millimeters.”].
As per claim 13, Jens discloses a computer program product which comprises a non-transitory medium having recorder thereon machine code that is executable by a control device for a rolling line for rolling a flat rolled product, wherein the execution of the machine code by the control device causes the control device to operate the rolling line according to an operating method as claimed in claim 1 [page 1, paragraph 2 under “Field of engineering”; page 3, paragraph 2 under “Description of the embodiments”].
As per claim 14, Jens discloses a control device for a rolling line for rolling a flat rolled product, wherein the control device is a software-programmable device and is programmed using a computer program, so that it operates the rolling line according to an operating method as claimed in claim 1 [page 2, paragraph 1; “… the control means being formed as a software programmable controller and programmed with such a computer program as to operate the mill train according to such an operating method.”; page 2, paragraph 2 under “Description of the embodiments”].
As per claim 15, Jens discloses a rolling line for rolling a flat rolled product, wherein the rolling line has a number of rolling stands, by means of which the flat rolled product is rolled, wherein the rolling line has a control device as claimed in claim 14 [Abstract; the control device (3)].
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jens et al (EP 3479916; hereinafter Jens) in view of Hofbauer et al (US Pub. 2021/0229149; hereinafter Hofbauer).
The applied reference has a common assignee and/or inventor(s) with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
As per claim 12, Jens discloses the invention substantially. Jens does not specifically disclose regarding cooling the rolled product. However, Hofbauer (in the same field of endeavor, i.e., rolling mill) discloses cooling the rolled product [para 0009, 0085]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cited references as both are directed to a rolling mill system and use of a cooling device will clearly improve the system as the rolled product or rolling stands can be cooled prior to they got too hot. In this way, preventing any accident due to heat raising above a threshold.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
B. US-20140283883 discloses an invention that is applied in particular, but not only, in a rolling line for flat products and, even more particularly in association with reversing rolling stands, such as those used in Steckel rolling mills.
C. US-20130160277 discloses an invention that concerns a rolling line and relative method for the production of flat metal products such as strip or plate.
D. US-10500621 discloses a method for the processing of material, particularly steel or another metal to be rolled on a rolling line with at least two roll stands each having at least one roll.
E. US-20130160509 discloses a method controls the section sizes of a rolled product in a segment of a rolling line between at least two rolling stands, wherein each is provided with its own drive members, in which at least a detector located between the two rolling stands detects a characteristic size of the rolled product.
F. US-20210308731 discloses a method for ascertaining control variables for active profile and flatness control elements for at least one rolling stand for hot rolling metal strip with a plurality of successive passes and for ascertaining profile and center flatness values for the hot-rolled metal strip.
G. US-20170259312 discloses a rolling control method for controlling the profile of a metal strip after rolling, a rolling control apparatus that performs the rolling control method, and a manufacturing method for a rolled metal strip.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SURESH K SURYAWANSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-3668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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, Kenneth M Lo can be reached at 5712729774. 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.
/SURESH SURYAWANSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116