DETAILED ACTION
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/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-12, drawn to an operating method for a roller assembly.
Group II, claim(s) 13-14, drawn to a computer product.
Group III, claim(s) 15-16, drawn to an evaluation device.
Group IV, claim(s) 16, drawn to a roller assembly.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of evaluation device, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of the rejection of claim 1 below.
I and III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of an evaluation device, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of the rejection of claim 1 below.
I and IV lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a roller assembly, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of the rejection of claim 1 below.
II and III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of evaluation device, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of the rejection of claim 1 below.
II and IV lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of evaluation device, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of the rejection of claim 1 below.
III and IV lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of evaluation device, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of the rejection of claim 1 below.
During a telephone conversation with Kourosh Salehi on 18 March 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-12. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 13-16 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-4, 7 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0246851 to Dressler et al (Dressler) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,874,724 to Muller et al (Muller).
Concerning claim 1, Dressler discloses an operating method for a roller assembly,
wherein a planar rolling material of metal (1) which extends in a width direction over a rolling material width is rolled by means of a roll stand (2, 3) of the roller assembly, wherein the planar rolling material leaves the roll stand in a transport direction after it has been rolled,
wherein at least one two-dimensional data set of the surface of the planar rolling material is iteratively repeatedly acquired on the output side of the roll stand-by means of an acquisition device (¶¶49, 61 and 96-97 for example) the values (DW) of which data set are dependent at least on the external flatness prevailing locally at the respective corresponding location of the planar rolling material,
wherein the respective two-dimensional data set is received by an evaluation device (4) of the roller assembly, which evaluation device, for strips of the planar rolling material running in the transport direction, and using strips of the respective two-dimensional data set that correspond to the strips, determines an error value which relates to the respective strip and is dependent on the flatness error (¶¶97 and 102 for example),
wherein the evaluation device supplies the determined error values to a control device of the roller assembly, which in turn takes the determined error values into consideration in the determination of control variables(S) for flatness control elements of the roll stand (¶¶109-132),
so that, as a result of the cooperation of the acquisition device, the evaluation device, the control device and the roll stand, a closed feedback control loop which works in real time is obtained, wherein the evaluation device, for determining the respective error value of a strip, determines intensities and spatial frequencies of local oscillations of the data values of the strip of the respective two-dimensional data set that corresponds to the respective strip and determines the respective error value on the basis of the intensities and/or the spatial frequencies (for example see ¶¶96-98).
However, Dressler does not disclose an acquisition device which works contactlessly and without mechanical action on the planar rolling material.
Muller discloses a method of determining flatness using non-contact detector in real time (column 3, line 45 to column 4, line 14).
Because both these references are concerned with a similar problem, i.e. detecting flatness of the entire workpiece, , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the detection unit of Dressler with that of Muller. In KSR (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)) the courts held that combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Accordingly a simple substitution of the detection unit of Dressler with that of Muller will obtain predictable results and is therefore obvious and proper combination of the references is made. The predictable results being image based detection.
Concerning claim 2, Muller, as applied to Dressler, disclose the acquisition device is in the form of a camera device (18, 19) by means of which a respective two-dimensional image of the surface of the planar rolling material is acquired as the respective two-dimensional data set or is determined on the basis of acquired image data.
Concerning claim 3, Muller, as applied to Dressler, disclose wherein, by means of the two-dimensional data sets, the surface of the planar rolling material is acquired over the entire width of the planar rolling material (see figure 1 and it is also noted that Dressler also acquires the data over the entire width).
Concerning claim 4, Muller, as applied to Dressler, disclose in figure 1 the acquisition device (18. 19), when seen in a plane defined by the width direction and the transport direction, is arranged centrally above the planar rolling material (10).
Concerning claim 7, Dressler in view of Muller discloses the evaluation device carries out pre-processing of the respective two-dimensional data set (D) prior to the determination of the intensities and spatial frequencies.
Concerning claim 9, Dressler in view of Muller discloses the evaluation device determines the respective error value (PF) using at least the intensity (I0) and/or the spatial frequency (f0) of the greatest local oscillation.
Concerning claim 10, Dressler in view of Muller discloses the planar rolling material is hot rolled or is cold rolled in the roll stand.
Concerning claim 11, Dressler in view of Muller discloses there is no other roll stand between the roll stand of the roller assembly and the acquisition device.
Concerning claim 12, Dressler in view of Muller discloses the roll stand of the roller assembly is the only roll stand of a rolling mill, the last roll stand of a multi-stand rolling-mill train, or a roll stand other than the last roll stand of a multi-stand rolling-mill train.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 8 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
For claim 5, the prior art does not disclose “the flatness control elements of the roll stand comprise locally acting control elements by means of which in each case only a portion of the upper working roller and/or of the lower working roller is influenced”.
For claim 6, the prior art does not disclose “the evaluation device, for determining the respective error value (PF) of a strip, selects a segment of the respective strip, in that the segment, when seen in the transport direction (x) of the planar rolling material, extends over the entire length of the respective strip and, when seen in the width direction (y) of the planar rolling material, extends over only part of the width of the respective strip, and in that the evaluation device determines the intensities and the spatial frequencies only in respect of the segment of the respective strip”.
For claim 8, the prior art does not disclose “the data values (D) are intensity values, and the pre-processing comprises normalization of the intensity values in respect of the maximum possible value range of the values of the two-dimensional data set (D) and, based on the respective strip or a segment of the respective strip, adjustment by the mean (M) of the data values (DW) of the respective strip or segment.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Katcoff whose telephone number is (571)270-1415. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4, Fri: Flex.
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.
/Matthew Katcoff/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
03/30/2026
Prosecution Insights