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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-14 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/19/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 03/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the steps of” should be changed to “steps of”.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “a length of material into the cooling system of a rolling mill” should be changed to “a length of the material into the cooling system of the rolling mill”.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “wherein the second flow rate 30” should be changed to “wherein the second flow rate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Presently; claim limitation is: a transportation mechanism in claim 1.
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 1-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “a transportation mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim, Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-8 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the result" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “a second temperature sensor” render the claim indefinite because:
Claim 6 is depended from claim 5, and claim 5 is depended from claim 1; and none of claims 1 and 5 recites “a first temperature sensor”;
So, it is unclear why having “a second temperature sensor” without “a first temperature sensor”.
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 1-8 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 the steps of:
conveying, by a transportation mechanism, 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 the 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
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