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 07/01/20 with respect Stanard (US20150298187A1) and Tsuda (JPH05123705A) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
the Applicant argued that “Neither Stanard nor Tsuda discloses or suggests guide means configured to selectively and intentionally guide a metal product toward one or another of at least two different rolling channels having different working surfaces, for the purpose of changing the type of processing applied to the product (for example, switching between a smooth and a ribbed finish) or of diverting the product to a fresh, non-worn channel without interrupting the rolling process. Stanard's system instead corrects an unwanted misalignment of a single delivery path relative to a single mill pass line, and Tsuda's roll stands are repositioned to bring a single pass schedule into alignment with the pass line, rather than to selectively divert the product among multiple rolling channels having different working surfaces. Because neither reference is directed to the problem addressed by the present application, namely, selectively changing the rolling channel in use, either to change the surface finish imparted to the product or because a given channel has become excessively worn, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason to modify Stanard in view of Tsuda to arrive at guide means configured to selectively divert the rolled product into a new rolling channel having a different working surface, as now recited in amended claim 1. With respect claim 5, the Applicant argued that “Applicant submits that this specific guide structure, used to selectively and intentionally direct the product into different rolling channels having different working surfaces, is not disclosed or suggested by Stanard, Tsuda or Wilhelm, each of which is directed to correcting or adjusting alignment of a single delivery or pass line rather than selectively switching among multiple, differently configured rolling channels”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., changing the type of processing applied to the product (for example, switching between a smooth and a ribbed finish; and changing the rolling channel in use, either to change the surface finish imparted to the product or because a given channel has become excessively worn) or of diverting the product to a fresh, non-worn channel without interrupting the rolling process; and selectively switching among multiple, differently configured rolling channels) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, both of the prior arts of Stanard and Tsuda are related to a rolling apparatus;
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
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 and 4-9 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.
The lack of clear transitional phrases in independent claim 1 render the claims indefinite as it cannot clearly be determined where the preamble ends and the body of the claim starts. See MPEP 2111.03.
Claims 4-9 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
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 1 and 4-9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanard (US20150298187A1) in view of Tsuda (JPH05123705A attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Stanard discloses an apparatus for rolling a metal product (abstract and paragraphs 0015-0027), the apparatus is used in a block of fast stands for rolling and finishing long products,
said apparatus being provided with rolling means comprising rolling stands (fig.1: (10)) having a first roller rotatable around a first axis of rotation and a second roller, opposite said first roller, rotatable around a second axis of rotation substantially parallel to said first axis of rotation (figs.1-2: (14)),
wherein said first roller comprises at least two first grooves and said second roller comprises at least two second grooves, opposite said first grooves (fig.1: see the groves of each roller (14)) and defining with the at least two first grooves and the at least two second grooves at least two rolling channels (fig.1: see the channels between the groves of the rollers (14)),
wherein each of said at least two rolling channels define an axis of exit of the metal product being rolled (figs.1-2), at least one of said at least two rolling channels is misaligned with an axis of arrival of the metal product being rolled from a previous rolling stand (is cable to receive product being rolled from a previous rolling stand), and
said apparatus further comprises guide means (figs.1-2: (16) and (18)) configured to selectively guide said metal product toward one or another of said at least two rolling channels, by diverting the metal product into a new channel with respect to the previous one (paragraph 0018-0020: the adjustment mechanism (26) for diverting the metal product into any channel between the groves of the rollers (14)), thus modifying the axis of exit of the metal product from said rolling stand between said axes (paragraphs 00004-0005 and 0018-0020; claim 1).
Stanard does not disclose wherein at least one first rolling channel and a second rolling channel of said at least two rolling channels have different working surfaces with respect to each other;
Tsuda teaches at least one first rolling channel and a second rolling channel of at least two rolling channels have different working surfaces with respect to each other (figs.1 and 3).
Both of the prior arts of Stanard and Tsuda are related to a rolling apparatus;
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 at least two rolling channels of the apparatus of Stanard to be at least one first rolling channel and a second rolling channel of at least two rolling channels have different working surfaces with respect to each other as taught by Tsuda, 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)].
Regrading claim 4, Stanard in view of Tsuda does not disclose wherein said rolling means comprise comprises a first rolling channel of said at least two rolling channels defined by a first groove of said first grooves of said first roller and by a first groove of said second grooves of said second roller both having a respective work surface smooth; a second rolling channel of said at least two rolling channels defined by a second groove of said first grooves of said first roller and by a second groove of said second grooves of said second roller both having a respective work surface configured to give a first type of rib to a metal product; and a third rolling channel of said at least two rolling channels defined by a third groove of said first grooves of said first roller and by a third groove of said second grooves of said second roller both having a respective work surface configured to give a second type of rib to the metal product, different from said first type of rib.
However, choosing the caliber roll is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on the general design of the rolling and specific requirements of the rolling process as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the type of the grove as desired, including wherein said rolling means comprise comprises a first rolling channel of said at least two rolling channels defined by a first groove of said first grooves of said first roller and by a first groove of said second grooves of said second roller both having a respective work surface smooth; a second rolling channel of said at least two rolling channels defined by a second groove of said first grooves of said first roller and by a second groove of said second grooves of said second roller both having a respective work surface configured to give a first type of rib to a metal product; and a third rolling channel of said at least two rolling channels defined by a third groove of said first grooves of said first roller and by a third groove of said second grooves of said second roller both having a respective work surface configured to give a second type of rib to the metal product, different from said first type of rib; in order to obtain a product with specific shape and dimensions as desired.
Regarding claim 5, Stanard discloses wherein said guide means comprise a fixed structure on which there is disposed a mobile structure to which two opposite guide rollers are attached, which define a guide channel lying on the same plane on which said at least two rolling channels lie, said mobile structure being configured to selectively direct said guide channel toward one or another of said rolling channels (paragraphs 00004-0005 and 0018-0020; claim 1).
Therefore, the modification of Stanard in view of Tsuda teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Stanard discloses wherein said fixed structure comprises a sliding guide on which said mobile structure is slidably mounted (paragraphs 00004-0005 and 0020; claim 1).
Therefore, the modification of Stanard in view of Tsuda teaches the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, Stanard discloses a mobile diverter with a substantially tubular shape, configured so that a metal product can pass through it and having both a first end associated with said mobile structure, upstream of said guide rollers, and also a second end associated with said fixed structure (paragraph 0020 and figs.1-3).
Therefore, the modification of Stanard in view of Tsuda teaches the limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Stanard discloses a rolling line having a plurality of rolling stands disposed in succession and the rolling apparatus as in claim 1, disposed in a terminal position, or in proximity to said terminal position, of said rolling line (paragraph 0015).
Therefore, the modification of Stanard in view of Tsuda teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Stanard (US20150298187A1) in view of Tsuda (JPH05123705A attached NPL, English Machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wilhelm (DE3312078C1 attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, Stanard does not discloses wherein said mobile structure is pivoted to said fixed structure in order to rotate with respect to the fixed structure around an axis of rotation.
Wilhelm teaches a guide means comprising a mobile structure (fig.1: (5, 16, 17)) is pivoted to a fixed structure (fig.1: (13)) in order to rotate with respect to the fixed structure around an axis of rotation (paragraph 0005).
Both of the prior arts of Stanard and Wilhelm are related to a rolling apparatus;
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 guide means of the apparatus of Stanard to be wherein said mobile structure is pivoted to said fixed structure in order to rotate with respect to the fixed structure around an axis of rotation as taught by Wilhelm, 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)].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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