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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference number 19 which describes the rolling axis in the specification is missing in Figure 1A, 1B, 1C, and Figure 1D. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the connector and the gear shaft (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “spacing of the gear shaft from the rolling axis being no more than 10 percent of a perpendicular spacing of the rolling axis from an outside side surface” (claim 2) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the adjustment connector and the gear shaft must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 8 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.
Regarding claim 2, the metes and bounds of the claim limitations cannot be reasonably ascertained for the following reasons: relative geometric contradiction. As claim 2 requires that “the gear shaft and the rolling axis are perpendicular when viewed along the rolling axis.” By definition, a view taken along a specific axis reduce that entire axis to a single point projection. Because the rolling axis appears as a point in this reference plane, it is geometrically impossible for another line (the gear shaft) to be perpendicular to a point projection. It is unclear whether the applicant intends to claim that the two axes are perpendicular in three-dimensional space, or if they are perpendicular when projected onto a different plane (e.g., a plane perpendicular to the rolling axis). For examination purposes the indefinite limitations have been interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification [see paragraph 0057]. Specifically, the phrase “perpendicular when viewed along the rolling axis” is interpreted to mean that the longitudinal axis of the gear shaft and the longitudinal axis of the rolling pass line are oriented perpendicular to one another in three-dimensional space.
Regarding claim 3, there’s appear to be a lack of clarity regarding the scope of the limitation of “a roller shaft” in line 4. In claim 3, the limitation “a roller shaft extends in parallel with the gear shaft” introduces a potential new element without clear structural identity.
Claim 1 introduces three rollers positioned on a respective roller shaft” (interpretable as three roller shaft total). Claim 3 begins by defining these elements, stating “the three rollers and the three roller shafts are offset in a rotationally symmetrical manner about the rolling axis. However, the subsequent clause introduces “a roller shaft” using the indefinite article “a.”
The resulting ambiguity it is unclear whether “a roller shaft” in line 4 of claim 3 refers to one specific shaft chosen from “the three roller shafts” previously cited in claim 1 and modified in the first clause of claim 3, or if it introduces a fourth, separate roller shaft. If it is intended to refer to one of the three roller shaft of claim 1, the limitation should be changed to “the roller shaft.” However, if it is intended to introduce an additional, separate roller shaft, the relationship between this new shaft and the existing three roller shafts of claim 1 is completely undefined, rendering the boundaries of the claim vague and confusing. Because the claim is susceptible to multiple divergent structural interpretations, it fails to distinctly apprise the public of the scope of the protection sought.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “wherein the stand housing is closed and undivided” is unclear. This limitation introduces ambiguity and renders the boundaries of the claim unclear when read in light of the specification, because the terms “closed” and “undivided” create a structural contradiction when a rod, wire, or pipe is inserted within the stand housing for rolling.
Specifically, the claim requires the housing to be both “closed” and “undivided.” However, the specification discloses that the stand housing features openings and access points to accommodate internal components (e.g., rolls, shafts, bearings, guide elements, or fluid lines) and to permit assembly or disassembly of the mill stand. Consequently, a housing that is completely “closed and undivided” is structurally irreconcilable with the disclosed embodiment, rendering the scope of the claim speculative and indefinite.
Furthermore, if the housing is completely “undivided” and “closed” it is unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) how the internal functional components of the rolling mill stand are installed, supported, or exposed to the rolling line. Conversely, if the housing contains standard operational openings as described in the disclosure, it cannot be strictly “closed and undivided.” Because the metes and bounds of what constitutes a “closed and undivided” housing cannot be reasonably determined when reconciled with the structural realities disclosed in the specification, the claim fails to distinctly define the scope of the invention.
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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucci et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11235363) in view of Potthoff (U.S. Patent 6490901), hereinafter Potthoff.
Regarding claim 1, Bucci et al. in Figure 1, discloses a stand for rolling metal rods, wires, or pipes along a rolling axis (P), comprising: a stand housing, an outside comprising at least six side surfaces when viewed along the rolling axis that are arranged so as to be offset about the rolling axis by a 60-degree rotation between adjacent side surfaces (see Figure 1), wherein each side surface is included in a pair of side surfaces that located in parallel with one another; three rollers (10) positioned on a respective roller shaft (20) [Figure 2], the three rollers (10) surrounding the rolling axis (P) in a star-shaped manner, collectively forming a caliber.
Bucci et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the three rollers are configured such that the radial position of the three rollers, with respect to the rolling axis, can be set for setting the caliber; an adjustment connector arranged on the outside of the stand housing for introducing an adjustment torque for setting the caliber, wherein the adjustment connector comprises a gear shaft in parallel with a pair of the mutually parallel side surfaces.
However, Potthoff teaches wherein three rollers (3) are configured such that the radial position of the three rollers, with respect to the rolling axis, can be set for setting the caliber (col. 1, lines 14-15; col. 2, lines 65-67); an adjustment connector (17) arranged on the outside of the stand housing for introducing an adjustment torque for setting the caliber, wherein the adjustment connector comprises a gear shaft (18) in parallel with a pair of the mutually parallel side surfaces as seen in Figure 1 (col. 6, lines 32-48).
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 rolling stand of Bucci et al. by incorporating the external adjustment connector and gear shaft parallel with a pair of the mutually parallel side surfaces, as taught by Potthoff in order to allow adjustment of the rolls so that during machining the rolls can be brought into the correct position and allow wide application of the rolls and reduce operating costs (col. 3, lines 55-col. 4, lines 8).
Regarding Claim 2, Potthoff teaches in Figure 1 the gear shaft (18) and the rolling axis (4) are perpendicular when viewed along the rolling axis. (The longitudinal axis of this gear shaft (18) and the central rolling axis (4) are arranged such that they are perpendicular to one another in three-dimensional space (satisfying the limitation “perpendicular when viewed along the rolling axis” under the BRI).
Potthoff does not explicitly teach that the spacing of the gear shaft from the rolling axis is “no more than 10 percent” of a perpendicular spacing of the rolling axis from an outside side surface.
However, it is noted that Potthoff shows the gear shaft (18) centered closely within the housing. Choosing the exact special dimensions, ratios, or tight tolerances (such as the claimed 10 percent limitation) of known interacting mechanical components in a rolling mill housing is a matter of routine design optimization within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to minimize the spacing of the gear shaft relative to the rolling axis so that the spacing of the gear shaft from the rolling axis is no more than 10 percent of a perpendicular spacing of the rolling axis from an outside side surface, to maximize structural compactness, reduce cantilevered loads on the adjustment device, and minimize the footprint of the stand block on the mill floor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the gear shaft from the rolling axis no more than 10 percent of a perpendicular spacing of the rolling axis from an outside side surface, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 3, Potthoff teaches wherein the three rollers (3) and the three roller shafts (7) are offset in a rotationally symmetrical manner about the rolling axis by a (120°) rotation between each roller shaft (col. 5, lines 57-59), and wherein a roller shaft extends in parallel with the gear shaft as seen in Figure 1. After modification, the roller shaft of Bucci et al. would extend in parallel with the gear shaft.
Regarding Claim 4, Potthoff teaches the stand further comprising only the one adjustment connector for introducing the adjustment torque for setting the caliber (col. 7, lines 65-67-col. 8, lines 1-2).
Regarding Claim 5 Potthoff teaches in Figure 1 the stand wherein the adjustment connector is operatively connected to an eccentric mechanism having eccentric bushing (14, 15) (see Figure 1) in which the roller shafts (7) are mounted, wherein the eccentric bushings are rotatably mounted in the stand housing and a rotational position of the eccentric bushings can be set by mean of the gear box (Col. 7, lines 65-67-Col. 8, lines 1-2; col. 8, lines 40-60).
Regarding Claim 6, Bucci et al. discloses the stand, wherein the outside of the stand housing comprises exactly six side surfaces which form a regular hexagon as seen in Figure 1.
Regarding claim 7, Potthoff teaches the stand housing, wherein the adjustment connector is configured to be actuated manually and automatically by a motor as depicted in Figure 2.
Regarding Claim 8, Bucci discloses the stand housing being closed and undivided (see Figure 1), the outside side surfaces are closed and undivided since the sides are undivided).
Regarding Claim 9, Potthoff teaches the stand housing, wherein each of the three roller shafts or rollers are configured to be driven separately, in particular by its own motor associated therewith (col. 9, line 10).
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a separate drive mechanism so that ideal roll diameters can be used, thereby allowing an especially wide application of the rolls and reduces operating costs (col. 4, lines 5-8).
Regarding Claim 10, Bucci et al. discloses the stand wherein the three roller shafts each comprise a drive-side end for separate driving, which protrudes towards the outside of the stand housing, at one of the side surfaces of the regular hexagon, as depicted in Figure 1.
Regarding claim 11, The claimed phrase “produced from a monobloc” is being treated as a product by process limitations. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited process steps, but rather, only the structural limitations implied by those steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 is proper, and the burden is shifted to the applicant to show a non-obvious difference over the prior art (MPEP 2113). Therefore, Bucci in view of Potthoff discloses claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12 Potthoff teaches the stand wherein each of the three roller shafts or rollers are configured to be driven by a respective motor (col.7, lines 14-22).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Haverkamp et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,764,368) teaches a hexagonal rolling stand comprising three rolls arranged in a star-shaped configuration, wherein each side surface is included in a pair of side surfaces located parallel to one another. However, Haverkamp et al. fails to teach that the roller shafts are independently driven.
Cernuschi et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2024/0269723 A1) teaches a rolling mill having a rolling stand wherein the roller shafts are independently driven, protrude toward the outside of the hexagonal stand housing at one of the side surfaces, and include an adjusting device positioned perpendicular to the rolling pass line and parallel to the vertical roller shaft.
Cattaneo et al. (European Patent No. 719600 A1) teaches a hexagonal-shaped rolling stand having at least three rolls in a star-shaped configuration, journalled on respective swinging arms whose rotation axes are perpendicular to the rolling axis.
Potthoff (U.S. Patent No. 7,424,816) teaches a roll stand for rolling tubular stock having at least three roller shafts independently driven which protrude towards the outside surface of the stand housing, wherein an adjusting device located perpendicular to the rolling axis parallel with one of the roller shafts.
Alupoaei (DE 1020110010697 A1) teaches a hexagonal rolling stand having at least three rolls and three roller shafts in a star-shaped configuration with each roller shaft parallel to a side surface of the hexagon.
Furthermore, Jia (CN 104722582 A) teaches an independently driven star-shaped roll arrangement and a gear shaft configured to transmit torque via a gearbox to three eccentric sleeves, thereby permitting control of product size tolerances to increase production yield, while concurrently allowing for hole-size adjustment and reduced roll-changing downtime.
Qin (CN 102728616 A) teaches a stand housing comprising, as viewed along the rolling axis, at least six side surfaces that are arranged to be offset about the rolling axis by a 60-degree rotation between adjacent side surfaces, wherein opposing side surfaces are parallel to one another (forming a hexagonal outer profile).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PIERRE FAUBERT MONDESTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
/PIERRE FAUBE MONDESTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3725 /Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights