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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, lines 12-14, filed 7/7/2026, with respect to claims 11-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of 4/16/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 7/7/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C.103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Alexander et al. DE 10023554 A1.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al., and further in view of Alexander et al. DE 10023554 A1 . DE 10023554 A1 is a published patent hereinafter to be referred to as the Alexander patent.
Regarding claim 1, Ma discloses a method for determining conformity of a rolling roll, the method being a method for determining conformity, in a rolling mill including one or two or more stands, of a rolling roll to be evaluated, the method comprising a rolling load data acquisition step of acquiring rolling load operation data of the stand having the roll to be evaluated; a circumferential speed data acquisition step of acquiring circumferential speed operation data of the roll to be evaluated; and a vibration analysis step of analyzing a vibration behavior of the stand using the rolling load operation data of the stand having the roll to be evaluated acquired in the rolling load data acquisition step (Ma Para [0001]: a method using a neural network prediction for high speed cold rolling mill frame vibration conditions in the rolling process; Para [0007]: data collection and processing: mill the vibration data of the same time period in the predicted production process, rolling force, rolling speed). Ma fails to disclose a rolling mill having a plurality of rolling rolls; a surface shape estimation step of estimating a surface shape of the roll to be evaluated during rolling of a metal strip, the surface shape of the roll to be evaluated comprising amplitude information associated with a pitch of polygonal irregularities formed on a surface of the roll to be evaluated, the surface shape of the roll to be evaluated being estimated using an analysis result of the vibration behavior of the stand having the roll to be evaluated by the vibration analysis step and the circumferential speed operation data of the roll to be evaluated acquired in the circumferential speed data acquisition step; and a conformity determination step of determining the conformity of the roll to be evaluated based on the surface shape of the roll to be evaluated estimated by the surface shape estimation step.
Alexander teaches a method for monitoring a rolling mill plant, in particular for detecting damage on its roll surfaces. The rolling mill including a plurality of rolling rolls (30,34,36,42; FIG.1), and a surface shape estimation step of estimating a surface shape of the roll to be evaluated during rolling of a metal strip (Alexander Para [0001] and [0003]), the surface shape of the roll to be evaluated comprising amplitude information associated with a pitch of irregularities formed on a surface of the roll to be evaluated, the surface shape of the roll to be evaluated being estimated using an analysis result of the vibration behavior of the stand having the roll to be evaluated by the vibration analysis step and the circumferential speed operation data of the roll to be evaluated acquired in the circumferential speed data acquisition step (Alexander Para [0019]: Measurement parameters, in particular accelerations, velocities or distances, are recorded using a suitable sensor. A particularly suitable sensor is a vibration sensor that can record acceleration, velocity and/or displacement signals.); and a conformity determination step of determining the conformity of the roll to be evaluated based on the surface shape of the roll to be evaluated estimated by the surface shape estimation step (Alexander Para [0023]: Such a characteristic value can, for example, consist of a specific combination of weighted amplitudes at certain frequencies that is identifying for a specific type of damage or that recognizes a usage condition of the roller within permissible parameters.).
Alexander does not teach polygonal irregularities formed on a surface of a roll to be evaluated; however, Alexander does teach a defect or damage to the surface of the roll to include a flattening of the roller or a localized area on the roller (Alexander Para [0006]) or a local increase in height on a roller (Alexander Para [0007]). It is known within the art that polygonal wear refers to uneven wear along a circumference of rotating components, such as rolling mill work rolls, forming a polygon-like profile rather than a smooth circle.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for determining conformity of a rolling roll disclosed in Ma, to include a surface shape estimation step of estimating a surface shape of a roll during rolling of a metal strip, the surface shape of the roll to be evaluated comprising amplitude information, and a conformity determination step of determining the conformity of the roll to be evaluated, as taught by Alexander, given the cruciality of the rollers surface in producing a metal strip (See Alexander Para [0005]: In such a production process, the rollers and especially their surfaces are therefore crucial for the quality of the produced strips.).
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma and Alexander as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saito.
Regarding claim 2, Ma in view of Alexander discloses the method for determining conformity of a roll, comprising a rolling load acquisition step, a circumferential speed data acquisition step, a vibration analysis step, a surface shape estimation step, and a conformity determination step (See claim 1 rejection above). However, Ma in view of Alexander fails to disclose an initial surface shape acquisition step of acquiring an initial surface shape of the roll to be evaluated before the roll to be evaluated is incorporated into any of the stands having the roll to be evaluated, wherein the surface shape estimation step estimates the surface shape of the roll to be evaluated using the initial surface shape of the roll to be evaluated acquired in the initial surface shape acquisition step.
Saito teaches an initial surface shape acquisition step of acquiring an initial surface shape of the roll to be evaluated before the roll to be evaluated is incorporated into any of the stands having the roll to be evaluated, wherein the surface shape estimation step estimates the surface shape of the roll to be evaluated using the initial surface shape of the roll to be evaluated acquired in the initial surface shape acquisition step (Saito Description Page 6, 3rd Paragraph: the present invention predicts the profile of a rolling roll by using a prediction model, and calculates the predicted roll profile; In the rolling method, the profile of the rolling roll is actually measured during the passing of the rolled material, and the profile deviation between the measured roll profile and the initial profile or the profile deviation between the predicted roll profile).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for determining conformity of a rolling roll disclosed by Ma in view of Alexander, to include an initial surface shape acquisition step of acquiring an initial surface shape of the roll to be evaluated, as taught by Saito, to predict the outcome result of the rolled metal strip (See Saito Para [0017]: the present invention also predicts the profile of a roll by using a predictive model, and uses the predicted roll profile and the deformation of the rolling mill and the rolled material to predict the rolled sheet.).
Regarding claim 7, Ma in view of Alexander and Saito discloses the method for determining conformity of a rolling roll, comprising an initial surface shape acquisition step, a rolling load acquisition step, a circumferential speed data acquisition step, a vibration analysis step, , a surface shape estimation step, wherein the initial surface shape of the roll to be evaluated acquired in the initial surface shape acquisition step is used to estimate the surface shape of the roll to be evaluated during the rolling of the metal strip, and a conformity determination step (See claim 2 rejection above), wherein the surface shape of the roll to be evaluated is amplitude information associated with a pitch of irregularities formed on a surface of the roll to be evaluated (Alexander Para [0023]: Such a characteristic value can, for example, consist of a specific combination of weighted amplitudes at certain frequencies that is identifying for a specific type of damage or that recognizes a usage condition of the roller within permissible parameters.).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Alexander as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsui.
Regarding claim 4, Ma in view of Alexander discloses the method for determining conformity of a roll comprising a rolling load date acquisition step, a circumferential speed data acquisition step, a vibration analysis step, a surface shape estimation step, and a conformity determination step (See claim 1 rejection above), however, Ma in view of Alexander fails to disclose wherein the analysis of the vibration behavior of the stand having the roll to be evaluated by the vibration analysis step includes using a rolling mill vibration model in which the stand having the roll to be evaluated is approximated by a mass-spring system, updating spring constants in the rolling mill vibration model according to the rolling load operation data of the stand having the roll to be evaluated, and calculating a frequency response when a virtual external force is applied to the rolling mill vibration model with the updated spring constants.
Matsui teaches a rolling equipment diagnosis device, wherein the analysis of the vibration behavior of the stand having the roll to be evaluated by the vibration analysis step includes using a rolling mill vibration model in which the stand having the roll to be evaluated is approximated by a mass-spring system (Matsui FIG. 6; Description of Embodiments, Page 5, 3rd Paragraph: The rolling equipment 1 can be expressed by a vibration model using the mass of each part (gear 4, spindle 6, rolling roll 8, etc.) and the spring constant.), updating spring constants in the rolling mill vibration model according to the rolling load operation data of the stand having the roll to be evaluated, and calculating a frequency response when a virtual external force is applied to the rolling mill vibration model with the updated spring constants (Matsui Description of Embodiments, Page 5: The predicted natural vibration frequency of each part of the rolling equipment 1 can be calculated, for example, based on the vibration model described above (that is, using the mass, spring constant, etc. in the vibration model).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for determining conformity of a rolling roll disclosed by Ma in view of Alexander, further taught by Matsui to analyze the vibration behavior of the stand having the roll to be evaluated by the vibration analysis step using a rolling mill vibration model in which the stand having the roll to be evaluated is approximated by a mass-spring system as a means to detect changes in a roller roll (Matsui Description of Embodiments, Page 8, 4th Paragraph: the natural vibration frequency corresponding to a specific part of the rolling equipment is diagnosed by comparing the amplitude obtained at the time of inspection at a certain time with the amplitude obtained at the time of inspection at a different time.).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Alexander as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi.
Regarding claim 5, Ma in view of Alexander discloses the method for rolling a metal strip comprising when the conformity of the roll to be evaluated is determined during the rolling of the metal strip using the method for determining conformity of a rolling roll, the method comprising a rolling load date acquisition step, a circumferential speed data acquisition step, a vibration analysis step, a surface shape estimation step, and a conformity determination step (See claim 1 rejection above), however, Ma in view of Alexander fails to disclose when the conformity of the roll to be evaluated is determined and a conformity determination result is nonconformity, replacing the roll to be evaluated with a new rolling roll.
Choi teaches replacing a roll to be evaluated when a conformity determination result is nonconformity (Choi Description, Page 2: when the influence of the roll eccentricity is seriously shown… it is necessary to separate and detect the eccentricity of the upper and lower [backup rolls] in order to easily determine which of the upper and lower [backup rolls] to replace).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for determining conformity of a rolling roll disclosed by Ma in view of Alexander, to replace a roll being evaluated when a conformity determination result is nonconformity, as taught by Choi, to prevent the roll mill from rolling out material having surface defects present. It is known within the art that when surface defects are present on a rolling roll these defects will transfer to the surface of the material being rolled.
Regarding claim 6, Ma, in view Alexander and Choi discloses the method for producing a cold-rolled steel sheet (Ma Para [0006]: This invention provides a high-speed cold rolling mill) comprising producing a cold-rolled steel sheet using the method for rolling a metal strip, the method comprising a rolling load data acquisition step, a circumferential speed data acquisition step, a vibration analysis step, a surface shape estimation step, and a conformity determination step, wherein when the conformity determination result is nonconformity, replacing the roll to be evaluated with a new rolling roll and rolling the metal strip (See claim 5 rejection above).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Alexander and Saito as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Matsui.
Regarding claim 8, Ma in view of Alexander and Saito discloses the method for determining the conformity of a rolling roll comprising an initial surface shape acquisition step, a rolling load data acquisition step, a circumferential speed data acquisition step, a vibration analysis step, a surface shape estimation step, wherein the initial surface shape of the roll to be evaluated acquired in the initial surface shape acquisition step is used to estimate the surface shape of the roll to be evaluated during the rolling of the metal strip, and a conformity determination step (See claim 2 rejection above), however Ma in view of Alexander and Saito fails to disclose wherein the analysis of the vibration behavior of the stand having the roll to be evaluated by the vibration analysis step includes using a rolling mill vibration model in which the stand having the roll to be evaluated is approximated by a mass-spring system, updating spring constants in the rolling mill vibration model according to the rolling load operation data of the stand having the roll to be evaluated, and calculating a frequency response when a virtual external force is applied to the rolling mill vibration model with the updated spring constants.
Matsui teaches a rolling equipment diagnosis device, wherein the analysis of the vibration behavior of the stand having the roll to be evaluated by the vibration analysis step includes using a rolling mill vibration model in which the stand having the roll to be evaluated is approximated by a mass-spring system (Matsui FIG. 6; Description of Embodiments, Page 5, 3rd Paragraph: The rolling equipment 1 can be expressed by a vibration model using the mass of each part (gear 4, spindle 6, rolling roll 8, etc.) and the spring constant.), updating spring constants in the rolling mill vibration model according to the rolling load operation data of the stand having the roll to be evaluated, and calculating a frequency response when a virtual external force is applied to the rolling mill vibration model with the updated spring constants (Matsui Description of Embodiments, Page 5: The predicted natural vibration frequency of each part of the rolling equipment 1 can be calculated, for example, based on the vibration model described above (that is, using the mass, spring constant, etc. in the vibration model).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for determining conformity of a rolling roll disclosed by Ma in view of Alexander and Saito, further taught by Matsui to analyze the vibration behavior of the stand having the roll to be evaluated by the vibration analysis step using a rolling mill vibration model in which the stand having the roll to be evaluated is approximated by a mass-spring system as a means to detect changes in a roller roll (Matsui Description of Embodiments, Page 8, 4th Paragraph: the natural vibration frequency corresponding to a specific part of the rolling equipment is diagnosed by comparing the amplitude obtained at the time of inspection at a certain time with the amplitude obtained at the time of inspection at a different time.).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Alexander and Saito as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Matsui.
Regarding claim 10, Ma in view of Alexander and Saito discloses the method for determining the conformity of a rolling roll comprising an initial surface shape acquisition step, a rolling load acquisition step, a circumferential speed data acquisition step, a vibration analysis step, a surface shape estimation step, wherein the initial surface shape of the roll to be evaluated acquired in the initial surface shape acquisition step is used to estimate the surface shape of the roll to be evaluated during the rolling of the metal strip, further wherein the surface shape of the roll to be evaluated is amplitude information associated with a pitch of irregularities formed on a surface of the roll to be evaluated, and a conformity determination step (See claim 7 rejection above), however Ma in view of Alexander and Saito fails to disclose wherein the analysis of the vibration behavior of the stand having the roll to be evaluated by the vibration analysis step includes using a rolling mill vibration model in which the stand having the roll to be evaluated is approximated by a mass-spring system, updating spring constants in the rolling mill vibration model according to the rolling load operation data of the stand having the roll to be evaluated, and calculating a frequency response when a virtual external force is applied to the rolling mill vibration model with the updated spring constants.
Matsui teaches a rolling equipment diagnosis device, wherein the analysis of the vibration behavior of the stand having the roll to be evaluated by the vibration analysis step includes using a rolling mill vibration model in which the stand having the roll to be evaluated is approximated by a mass-spring system (Matsui FIG. 6; Description of Embodiments, Page 5, 3rd Paragraph: The rolling equipment 1 can be expressed by a vibration model using the mass of each part (gear 4, spindle 6, rolling roll 8, etc.) and the spring constant.), updating spring constants in the rolling mill vibration model according to the rolling load operation data of the stand having the roll to be evaluated, and calculating a frequency response when a virtual external force is applied to the rolling mill vibration model with the updated spring constants (Matsui Description of Embodiments, Page 5: The predicted natural vibration frequency of each part of the rolling equipment 1 can be calculated, for example, based on the vibration model described above (that is, using the mass, spring constant, etc. in the vibration model).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for determining conformity of a rolling roll disclosed by Ma in view of Alexander and Saito, further taught by Matsui to analyze the vibration behavior of the stand having the roll to be evaluated by the vibration analysis step using a rolling mill vibration model in which the stand having the roll to be evaluated is approximated by a mass-spring system as a means to detect changes in a roller roll (Matsui Description of Embodiments, Page 8, 4th Paragraph: the natural vibration frequency corresponding to a specific part of the rolling equipment is diagnosed by comparing the amplitude obtained at the time of inspection at a certain time with the amplitude obtained at the time of inspection at a different time.).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Alexander and Saito as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Choi.
Regarding claim 11, Ma in view of Alexander and Saito discloses the method for rolling a metal strip comprising during the rolling of the metal strip, comprising an initial surface shape acquisition step, a rolling load date acquisition step, a circumferential speed data acquisition step, a vibration analysis step, a surface shape estimation step, wherein the initial surface shape of the roll to be evaluated acquired in the initial surface shape acquisition step is used to estimate the surface shape of the roll to be evaluated during the rolling of the metal strip (See claim 2 rejection above), however Ma in view of Alexander and Saito fails to disclose wherein a conformity determination is nonconformity, and further comprising replacing the rolling roll with a new rolling roll and rolling the metal strip.
Choi teaches replacing a roll to be evaluated when a conformity determination result is nonconformity (Choi Description, Page 2: when the influence of the roll eccentricity is seriously shown… it is necessary to separate and detect the eccentricity of the upper and lower [backup rolls] in order to easily determine which of the upper and lower [backup rolls] to replace). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for determining conformity of a rolling roll disclosed by Ma in view of Alexander and Saito, to replace a roll being evaluated when a conformity determination result is nonconformity, as taught by Choi, to prevent the roll mill from rolling out material having surface defects present. It is known within the art that when surface defects are present on a rolling roll these defects will transfer to the surface of the material being rolled.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Alexander and Matsui as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Choi.
Regarding claim 13, Ma in view of Alexander and Matsui discloses the method for rolling a metal strip comprising during the rolling of the metal strip, determining conformity of a rolling roll using the method of determining conformity of the rolling roll, the method comprising a rolling load data acquisition step, a circumferential speed data acquisition step, a vibration analysis step that includes using a rolling mill vibration model in which the stand having the roll to be evaluated is approximated by a mass-spring system, a shape estimation step, and a conformity determination step (See claim 4 rejection above), however, Ma in view of Alexander and Matsui, fails to disclose wherein a conformity determination result is nonconformity, replacing the roll to be evaluated with a new rolling roll and rolling the metal strip.
Choi teaches replacing a roll to be evaluated when a conformity determination result is nonconformity (Choi Description, Page 2: when the influence of the roll eccentricity is seriously shown… it is necessary to separate and detect the eccentricity of the upper and lower [backup rolls] in order to easily determine which of the upper and lower [backup rolls] to replace). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for determining conformity of a rolling roll disclosed by Ma in view of Alexander and Matsui, to replace a roll being evaluated when a conformity determination result is nonconformity, as taught by Choi, to prevent the roll mill from rolling out material having surface defects present. It is known within the art that when surface defects are present on a rolling roll these defects will transfer to the surface of the material being rolled.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Alexander, Saito, and Matsui as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Choi.
Regarding claim 14, Ma in view of Alexander, Saito, and Matsui discloses the method for rolling a metal strip comprising during the rolling of the metal strip, determining conformity of a rolling roll using the method of conformity of the rolling roll, the method comprising an initial surface shape acquisition step, a rolling load date acquisition step, a circumferential speed data acquisition step, a vibration analysis step that includes using a rolling mill vibration model in which the stand having the roll to be evaluated is approximated by a mass-spring system, a surface shape estimation step, wherein the initial surface shape of the roll to be evaluated acquired in the initial surface shape acquisition step is used to estimate the surface shape of the roll to be evaluated during the rolling of the metal strip, and a conformity determination step (See claim 8 rejection above), however, Ma in view of Alexander and Matsui fails to disclose wherein a conformity determination result is nonconformity, replacing the roll to be evaluated with a new rolling roll and rolling the metal strip.
Choi teaches replacing a roll to be evaluated when a conformity determination result is nonconformity (Choi Description, Page 2: when the influence of the roll eccentricity is seriously shown… it is necessary to separate and detect the eccentricity of the upper and lower [backup rolls] in order to easily determine which of the upper and lower [backup rolls] to replace). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for determining conformity of a rolling roll disclosed by Ma in view of Alexander and Matsui, to replace a roll being evaluated when a conformity determination result is nonconformity, as taught by Choi, to prevent the roll mill from rolling out material having surface defects present. It is known within the art that when surface defects are present on a rolling roll these defects will transfer to the surface of the material being rolled.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Alexander, Saito, and Matsui as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Choi.
Regarding claim 16, Ma in view of Alexander, Saito, and Matsui disclose the method for rolling a metal strip comprising during the rolling of the metal strip determining conformity of a rolling roll using the method of determining conformity of the rolling roll, the method comprising an initial surface shape acquisition step, a rolling load acquisition step, a circumferential speed data acquisition step, a vibration analysis step that includes using a rolling mill vibration model in which the stand having the roll to be evaluated is approximated by a mass-spring system, a surface shape estimation step, wherein the initial surface shape of the roll to be evaluated acquired in the initial surface shape acquisition step is used to estimate the surface shape of the roll to be evaluated during the rolling of the metal strip, further wherein the surface shape of the roll to be evaluated is amplitude information associated with a pitch of irregularities formed on a surface of the roll to be evaluated, and a conformity determination step (See claim 10 rejection above), however, Ma in view of Alexander, Saito, and Matsui fails to disclose wherein a conformity determination result is nonconformity, replacing the roll to be evaluated with a new rolling roll and rolling the metal strip.
Choi teaches replacing a roll to be evaluated when a conformity determination result is nonconformity (Choi Description, Page 2: when the influence of the roll eccentricity is seriously shown… it is necessary to separate and detect the eccentricity of the upper and lower [backup rolls] in order to easily determine which of the upper and lower [backup rolls] to replace). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for determining conformity of a rolling roll disclosed by Ma in view of Alexander and Matsui, to replace a roll being evaluated when a conformity determination result is nonconformity, as taught by Choi, to prevent the roll mill from rolling out material having surface defects present. It is known within the art that when surface defects are present on a rolling roll these defects will transfer to the surface of the material being rolled.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground 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 DARLINGTON N IBEKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-2474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4:00pm.
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.
D.N.I.
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights