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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 with respect Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “While the first paragraph of section [0008] states "a circuit 13 for controlling the speed of movement and coolant flow rate controller 14", the Applicant suggests this is a bad translation. Specifically, the Applicant suggests the phrases should have been separated by a comma, "a circuit 13 for controlling the speed of movement, and coolant flow rate controller 14." This makes sense because: 1) there is nothing in the figure showing that the output of the circuit 13 is connected to the flow rate controller 14, 2) technically a motor controller and a flow rate controller are different components (one is not known as a controller for the other), and 3) the input to the flow rate controller 14 comes from device 7 (section [0054]), which calculates the flow rate based on input parameters (called given parameters) t, t, V, R received from a setter 8 (section [0006]). The term setter clearly means a device for setting parameters (i.e. and input device)”. The flow rate is set by device 7, which receives nominal values (set values) from the setter 8 to set the flow rate. It is clear that device 7 does not receive as an input a speed value from the sensor 4 either directly or indirectly. Hence, the flow rate is not set by the speed that is sensed by the speed sensor 4. Rather, the reference to speed value V appears to be an input parameter provided to the system to set a flow rate. In short, the method of Andrejchenko's system is concerned with adjusting the speed of the material to the flow rate of the coolant, and not adjusting the flow rate of the coolant to the speed of the material (claim 1). Thus, Andrejchenko does not anticipate claim 1 and claims depending from claim 1. In short, the method of Andrejchenko's system is concerned with adjusting the speed of the material to the flow rate of the coolant, and not adjusting the flow rate of the coolant to the speed of the material (claim 1). Thus, Andrejchenko does not anticipate claim 1 and claims depending from claim 1.
In response to this argument, the Applicant cannot change the translation and add “a comma” to assume how the prior art of Andrejchenko works, then argued that the prior art of Andrejchenko does not disclose “a circuit 13 for controlling the speed of movement and coolant flow rate controller 14”;
the figure of the prior art of Andrejchenko is clearly showing that all the components is connected in one circuit; and the element (14) is connected to element (13) via elements (10) and (12);
Paragraph 0008 clearly and explicitly disclose “a circuit 13 for controlling the speed of movement and a coolant flow rate controller 14”; and
Paragraph 0030, which cited by the Examiner explicitly and clearly discloses “The output of the speed sensor is connected to the second input of the comparison block. the output of the comparison block is connected to the second input of the correction block of the device 7, proportional to the calculated flow rate value Q,… ,where the specified (base) flow rate value is processed”.
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andrejchenko (SU1357100A1).
Regarding claim 1, Andrejchenko discloses a method of cooling a material in a cooling system (fig.1: (2)) of a rolling mill using a cooling fluid (fig.1, paragraphs 0001-0090), the method comprising:
Conveying a length of material into the cooling system of a rolling mill (fig.1: movement of the rolled product toward the colling system (2) “corresponding to the transportation mechanism”);
measuring, by a sensor (fig.1: (4)), a speed of the length of material;
comparing (fig.1: a comparison unit (11)), by a control system, the measured speed to a setpoint speed, wherein the setpoint speed has a corresponding first flow rate (paragraphs 0006-0009 and 0030: flow rate) of the cooling fluid (paragraph 0030);
calculating (fig.1: a correction unit (12)), by the control system, a second flow rate (paragraph 0030: corrected flow rate) of the cooling fluid based on the comparison, wherein the second flow rate is different from the first flow rate (paragraphs 0033, 0054-0056 and 0088); and
applying, to the material in the cooling system, the cooling fluid at the second flow rate (paragraphs 0033, 0054-0056 and 0088).
Regarding claim 2, Andrejchenko discloses wherein the second flow rate comprises an adjustment value, wherein the adjustment value is a result of the comparison between the measured speed and the setpoint speed, and further wherein calculating the second flow rate comprises adding the adjustment value to the first flow rate to give the second flow rate (paragraphs 0006 and 0088; coolant flow rate controller (14)).
Regarding claim 3, Andrejchenko discloses wherein the adjustment value is a value which minimises a difference between a final temperature of the length of material after the length of material has exited the cooling system and a setpoint temperature (paragraphs 0006-0018; 0088 and 0090).
Regarding claim 4, Andrejchenko discloses wherein the method further comprises:
measuring, by a first temperature sensor (fig.1: (1)), an initial temperature of the length of material before the length of material has entered the cooling system;
comparing the measured temperature to a setpoint temperature;
calculating, by the control system, a third flow rate based on the comparison; and
combining the third flow rate with the second flow rate (paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0054-0056 and 0088: the required flow rate, the coolant flow rate controller and corrected flow rate).
Regarding claim 5, Andrejchenko discloses wherein calculating the first flow rate comprises:
receiving, by the control system, a set of initial conditions relating to the material;
modelling, by the control system and using the set of initial conditions, a cooling process of the material; and
calculating, by the control system, the first flow rate based on the modelled cooling process (paragraphs 0006 and 0009-0058, 0064-0077).
Regarding claim 6, Andrejchenko discloses wherein the modelling further comprises:
measuring, by a second temperature sensor, a final temperature of the length of material after the length of material has exited the cooling system;
comparing, by the control system, the measured final temperature to a predicted final temperature;
calculating, by the control system, a difference between the measured final temperature and the predicted final temperature;
modelling an enhanced cooling process of the material using the set of initial conditions and the difference;
calculating, by the control system, a fourth flow rate based on the modelled enhanced cooling process; and
combining the fourth flow rate with the second flow rate (paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0054-0056, 0088 and 0090; the required flow rate, the coolant flow rate controller and corrected flow rate).
Regarding claim 7, Andrejchenko discloses wherein the measuring, by a sensor, a speed of the length of material comprises measuring the speed of the length of material within the cooling system (paragraphs 0008 and 0064 and 0090).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrejchenko (SU1357100A1) in view of Tachibana (US20100218578A1).
Regarding claim 8, Andrejchenko does not disclose wherein the second flow rate comprises a plurality of flow references and the cooling system comprises a plurality of spray headers, and wherein the step of applying the cooling liquid at the second flow rate comprises:
applying, to the material by each of the plurality of spray headers, the cooling fluid according to the corresponding flow reference of said spray header.
Tachibana teaches a method of cooling a material in a cooling system of a rolling mill using a cooling fluid (abstract); he cooling system comprises a plurality of spray headers (fig.1: (5)) (paragraph 0017).
Both of the prior arts of Andrejchenko and Tachibana are related to a method of cooling a material in a cooling system of a rolling mill using a cooling fluid;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling system of Andrejchenko to have a plurality of spray headers as taught by, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]. Thereby having wherein the second flow rate comprises a plurality of flow references and the cooling system comprises a plurality of spray headers, and wherein the step of applying the cooling liquid at the second flow rate comprises: applying, to the material by each of the plurality of spray headers, the cooling fluid according to the corresponding flow reference of said spray header.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 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, CHRISTOPHER 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights