DETAILED ACTION
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 1-11 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 1, line 12 recites “capable of moving”, the Examiner suggests amending this language to delete the “capable of” since lines 16-20 positively recite that a hydraulic clamping mechanism is configured to switch open and closing of the upper housing part and lower housing part.
Claim 1, line 13, --upper-- should be inserted prior to “backup”.
Claim 1, line 15, --lower-- should be inserted prior to “backup”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the front" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, line 21 recites “the rolls”, it is not clear what rolls of the work roll or intermediate rolls or both this is referring to.
Claim 1, line 22 recites “the rolls”, it is not clear what rolls of the work roll or intermediate rolls or both this is referring to.
Claim 1, line 34, --the-- should precede “axial” since axial stops for the second intermediate rolls have already been set forth in line 26.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the front" bridging lines 34 and 35. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the vertical movements" bridging lines 35 and 36. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, line 37 recites “and/or” which does not allow a scope of the apparatus structure to be ascertained since it is not clear if the limitations that follow the and/or recitation are necessary to the invention, Examiner suggests amending to --and--.
Claim 1, line 38, --the-- should precede “axial” since axial stops for the second intermediate rolls have already been set forth in line 26.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the vertical movements" in line 39. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitations "the front" in lines 4 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 6, lines 2 and 3 recite “on the one hand” and “on the other hand” which is an idiomatic translation from a foreign document and should be deleted.
Claim 6, line 11 recites “and/or” which does not allow a scope of the apparatus structure to be ascertained since it is not clear if the limitations that follow the and/or recitation are necessary to the invention, Examiner suggests amending to --and--.
Claim 7, line 11 recites “and/or” which does not allow a scope of the apparatus structure to be ascertained since it is not clear if the limitations that follow the and/or recitation are necessary to the invention, Examiner suggests amending to --and--.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the central opening" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitations "the front" in line 2, “the front” in line 3, “the bottom” in line 3, “the bottom” in line 4, “the front” in line 6, “the front” in line 7 and “the bottom” bridging lines 7 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitations "the front" in line 3, “the front” in line 4, “the bottom” in line 4, “the bottom” in line 5, “the front” in line 7, “the front” in line 8, “the bottom” bridging lines 8 and 9, “the front” in line 10 and “the front” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a hydraulic clamping mechanism configured to switch” in claim 1, line 16 and “a device for displacing the first intermediate rolls” in claim 1, line 28.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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. Claims 2-11 would be allowable as they depend from allowable claim 1.
The closest prior art to Yu et al. (KR 101511957B1) teaches a 20-hi cluster mill including a main door (16) and a secondary door (17) connected to a housing frame (1) wherein the doors open to permit removal of at least work rolls (12) and intermediate rolls (13,14) through a maintenance window (10) in a front side of the housing frame (1; Fig. 2) and which close to seal the maintenance window, the housing frame enclosing an upper housing part (2) surrounding an upper roll group and a lower housing part (3) surrounding a lower roll group with the upper housing part (2) and lower housing part (3) being separable (Fig. 6) and clamped into the housing frame (1) by cylinders (23,24).
The prior art to Lenz et al. (10,124,379) teaches a large main door (30) and a smaller swinging door (30) which is hinged (42,44) to open a maintenance window in the main door (30) so that the working rolls (12) and intermediate rolls (13) are removable for roll maintenance and exchanging.
The prior art of record does not teach, in a 20-hi cluster mill including a housing having an upper housing part supporting an upper roll group and a lower part supporting a lower roll group, the upper housing part and lower housing part relatively movable between an open position and a closed position where the upper housing part and lower housing part are clamped by a hydraulic clamping system; wherein the 20-hi cluster mill includes a system of axial stops for the work rolls, the axial stops for the work rolls being configured to axially stop the work rolls and a system of axial stops for the second intermediate rolls, the axial stops for the second intermediate rolls being configured to axially stop said second lower and upper intermediate rolls, a device for displacing the first intermediate rolls, configured to ensure axial displacements of the first lower and upper intermediate rolls relative to one another, a door cooperates, in a closed position, with a peripheral frame of a fixed frame structure of a housing surrounding the maintenance window, the door closing to seal the maintenance window, the system of axial stops for the second intermediate rolls comprising an upper arm carrying the axial stops for axially stopping the second upper intermediate rolls, at a front of the housing, the upper arm being mounted on an upper housing part so as to accompany vertical movements of the upper housing part relative to the door; the upper arm being arranged between the door and the second upper intermediate rolls, when the door is in the closed position, and a lower arm carrying the axial stops for axially stopping the second lower intermediate rolls, the lower arm being mounted on a lower housing part so as to accompany vertical movements of the lower housing part relative to the door, the lower arm being arranged between the door and the second lower intermediate rolls, when the door is in the closed position.
Conclusion
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