NON-FINAL REJECTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
In para. [0009] of PGPub, applicants cited a NPL ("New developments improve hot strip shape: Shapemeter-Looper and Shape Actimeter" by George F. Kelk et al., Iron and Steel Engineer, August 1986, pages 48 to 56) but not cited in any IDS. Examiner requests to submit the reference.
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.
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 of this title, 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 1, 5-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morii et al. (JPH 10-170363A, cited by the applicants, “Morii”) in view of JP S59-029704 U (Japanese Office action disclosed the document as “Microfilm of Japanese Utility Model Application No. S57-125476 (JP S59-029704U)," cited by the applicants, “Microfilm Art”).
Regarding Claim 1, Morii teaches in ([0008] and [0013] - [0017] and Fig.1) a measuring arrangement in a transport device (Fig.1) for a metal strip (strip 3), wherein the measuring arrangement is arranged between a front device and a rear device of the transport device (shown in fig.1 where elements 1 and 2 can be referred as a front device and a rear device respectively), said rear device being arranged downstream of the front device (shown in fig.1), wherein the measuring arrangement has a mechanical excitation device (electromagnet 4a - 4c, 5a - 5c) by means of which the metal strip can be excited so as to vibrate mechanically in its thickness direction at an excitation frequency (fA) ([0013]-[0015]), wherein the measuring arrangement has a metal plate (not labeled, along which sensors 6a-6c are placed), the upper side of which faces the metal strip (shown in fig.1B), wherein a plurality of sensor elements (elements 6a-6c) is arranged in the metal plate [0018], wherein the sensor elements are arranged offset relative to one another as viewed in a width direction of the metal strip (shown in fig.1B), wherein it is possible by means of the sensor elements to acquire for each of the plurality areas of the metal strip which are offset relative to one another in the width direction a measurement signal (MA) that is characteristic of the amplitude (A) [0011] of the excited mechanical vibration of the respective area of the metal strip ([0011], [0018]), wherein: the sensor elements project towards the metal strip beyond the upper side of the metal plate (shown in fig.1).
Morii does not explicitly teach that the measuring arrangement has a cover which consists of an electrically insulating material and covers the sensor elements on their upper side and seals them on their sides.
However, Microfilm Art teaches a device (Fig. 3) for measuring the displacement in the thickness direction of a running rolled steel plate at a plurality of positions in the width direction. A plurality of vortex distance sensors 15 are arranged along the width direction of the rolled steel plate. According to Figs. 3 and 4, a plurality of vortex distance sensors 15 are housed in a box (sensor box 12), and are installed on the upper surface of a plate-shaped member in the box. In addition, the upper portion of the box body is covered with a resin plate 13.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morii’s system with the teaching of Microfilm Art since the cover for a sensor arrangement is known in the art which would provide protection to the sensors.
Regarding Claim 5, the measuring arrangement as claimed in claim 1 is taught by Morii in view of Microfilm art.
Morii further teaches wherein the mechanical excitation device has a flat boundary surface that faces the metal strip (shown in fig.1 and 6).
Regarding Claim 6, the measuring arrangement as claimed in claim 5 is taught by Morii in view of Microfilm art.
Modified Morii further teaches wherein an upper side of the cover lies in the plane that is formed by the plane boundary surface (shown in fig.1 and 6).
Regarding Claim 9, the measuring arrangement as claimed in claim 1 is taught by Morii in view of Microfilm art.
Modified Morii further teaches wherein: the sensor elements each have a sleeve with an external thread (shown in Fig.3 of Microfilm art), in the respective sleeve a respective sensor is arranged (shown in Fig.3 of Microfilm art), by means of which in each case one of the measurement signals (MA) can be acquired, and a respective fixing element is applied to the respective sleeve (shown in Fig.3 of Microfilm art), said fixing element having a collar that projects radially outwards over the respective sleeve in the radial direction (shown in Fig.3 of Microfilm art).
Regarding Claim 10, the measuring arrangement as claimed in claim 9 is taught by Morii in view of Microfilm art.
Modified Morii further teaches wherein the metal plate has receptacles for the sensor elements (implicitly taught in fig.1 of Morii), which in turn each have a radially inwardly projecting support ring for the respective collar of the respective sensor element (implicitly taught in fig.1 of Morii).
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morii in view of Microfilm art as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Concalves (US 2019/0206240 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, the measuring arrangement as claimed in claim 1 is taught by Morii in view of Microfilm art.
Microfilm art further teaches a cover (13) over the sensors (15).
Modified Morii dies not explicitly teach that the cover consists of a ceramic or a plastic.
However, Concalves teaches a sensor housing system in fig.7 wherein the cover consists of a ceramic or a plastic ([0096] discloses resin cover).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morii’s system with the teaching of Concalves since such sensor cover is known in the art which would provide protection to the sensors.
Regarding Claim 11, the measuring arrangement as claimed in claim 9 is taught by Morii in view of Microfilm art.
Microfilm art further teaches a cover (13) over the sensors (15).
Microfilm art further teaches wherein a plastic hood (13) is applied to the respective sensor on its side that faces the metal strip, so that the respective sensor, insofar as it projects beyond the metal plate, is sealed in an airtight and watertight manner (implicitly the sensor housing of modified Morii is airtight and watertight).
Modified Morii does not explicitly teach the hood being made of plastic.
However, Concalves teaches a sensor housing system in fig.7 wherein the cover consists of a ceramic or a plastic ([0096] discloses resin cover).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morii’s system with the teaching of Concalves since such sensor cover is known in the art which would seal the housing in an airtight and watertight manner [0096].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 8, 12 and Claims 3-4, 13 that are depended on claims 2 and 12 respectively, 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 following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Limitations of the respective claims 2, 8 and 12 are the reasons for allowability.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hong et al. (US 6,427,507 B1) teaches an apparatus for measuring flatness of a hot rolled strip based on a contact load of the hot rolled strip to split rolls of a looper in the hot rolling process. The split rolls are assembled in a bracket such that each split roll can be separated from the bracket. A normal movement control unit for moving the split rolls in the normal direction, and a tangent-movement control unit for moving the split rolls in the tangent direction are provided at a side of the bracket bearing the split rolls [Abstract].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN NATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1443. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 9:00 am to 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, JOHN BREENE can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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 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.
/SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855