DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I claims 16-29 in the reply filed on 4-28-2026 is acknowledged. Applicant requested possible rejoinder of claim 30 in the response filed 4-28-2026. To be considered for rejoinder with claim 16, claim 30 should be amended to --The method according to claim 16, comprising loading into a non-transitory internal memory of a digital computer, software code portions executable when the computer program product is running on the digital computer-- or similar language which further limits method claim 16.
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 16-29 are 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.
Claim 16, line 5, the term --a-- should precede “form” to define that a form of first pass changes is a limitation.
Claim 16, line 6, the language “some of the rolling stands” is not clear, it should be amended to --a predetermined number of rolling stands less than M-- or similar language.
Claim 16, line 21, the term --a-- should precede “form” to distinguish that a form of second pass changes is a new limitation, different from the limitation, a form of first pass changes.
Claim 16, line 25, “sequential” should be –sequentially--.
Claim 16, line 26, the language “in those the rolling stands provided” is not clear. Is this language supposed to be --in at least the last of the rolling mill stands-- which limitation was set forth in line claim 16, line 22 or some other rolling stands?
Claims 17 and 18, line 2, the language “and/or” is indefinite since it is not clear if the limitations following the “and/or” recitation are necessary. In lines 19 and 20 of claim 16, it is set forth that no pass change is required for the first load distribution so it is not clear what a scope of and/or is when no pass change is definitely claimed.
Claim 25, line 3, the language “in such a manner” is a direct translation from a foreign document and is idiomatic language.
Claim 28, line 2, the language “in each case” are not clear since no first case or second case or any case are claimed in claim 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Claims 17-29 would be allowable as they depend from allowable claim 16. The prior art of record does not disclose a method of rolling down a strip thickness to a new final rolling dimension in a number (M) of successive rolling mill stands by determining a first load redistribution for a first temporal (time) phase (I) in a form of first pass changes for a predetermined number of rolling stands less than the number (M) with regard to the new final rolling dimension, and in the first temporal phase (I) sequentially driving the first pass changes corresponding to the first load redistribution by forming up to a number (M-1) wedges in the strip; wherein each wedge-rolling rolling mill stand of the rolling mill stands, except for a first rolling mill stand, starts to roll a wedge caused by an associated one of the first pass changes in the rolling material at a point where a preceding rolling mill stand of the rolling mill stands has also started to roll a wedge, such that wedges rolled in the first temporal phase (I) are superimposed in the rolling material, and wherein in the first load redistribution for a last of the rolling mill stands no pass change is provided and then determining a second load redistribution for a second temporal (time) phase (II) in a form of second pass changes for at least the last of the rolling mill stands with regard to the new final rolling dimension by rolling the strip to the new final dimension by sequentially driving pass changes in at least the last of the rolling mill stands provided for by the second load redistribution.
The closest prior art to Gruss et al. (9,138,789) teaches wedge rolling in a plurality of rolling stands (4-7; Figs. 2 and 3) to decrease a thickness of a strip from a first thickness dimension (He) to a final thickness dimension (Ha) by executing a pass change (col. 8, lines 59-67) with load distribution of roll drives (20,21,22,23) for the rolling stands and a discharge thickness (Ha) remains constant during an entire redistribution of the loads of the roll drives (col. 9, lines 62-67) but Gruss does not teach in the first load redistribution for a last of the rolling mill stands no pass change is provided and then determining a second load redistribution for a second temporal (time) phase (II) in a form of second pass changes for at least the last of the rolling mill stands with regard to the new final rolling dimension by rolling the strip to the new final dimension by sequentially driving pass changes in at least the last of the rolling mill stands provided for by the second load redistribution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD THOMAS TOLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Chris 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.
/EDWARD T TOLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights