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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected below.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Removing the numbers should made the abstract proper.
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 6, 8, 14, and 16 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 6 states that first parameter and the second parameter of the same “type” of setpoint. It isn’t clear what this means.
Claims 8, 14, and 16 all use the relative term “bad” which renders the claim indefinite. The term “bad” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Furthermore, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of what a “bad start” are.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-17, and 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being (a)(2) by Kitagoh (U.S. PG Pub. 2023/0011915).
As to claims 1 and 9, Kitagoh teaches a method of rolling a metal substrate with a rolling mill, the method comprising: before rolling the metal substrate: receiving a historical parameter from a previous rolling operation[0011]; receiving substrate information about the metal substrate to be rolled[0105]; and predicting a start parameter for the rolling mill based on the historical parameter and the substrate information[0106]; and starting a rolling operation, wherein starting the rolling operation comprises initially receiving the metal [0084]substrate at the rolling mill and controlling the rolling mill to have the predicted start parameter at least while initially receiving the metal substrate at the rolling mill[0126, 0144]. Claim 15 is similar in nature, but includes a work stand which can be seen throughout the refer3ence [0076, 103, 0104, 0106, etc.]
As to claims 2, 10 and 17, Kitagoh teaches wherein predicting the start parameter comprises predicting a first start parameter and a second start parameter for a work stand of the rolling mill[0106].
As to claim 4 and 12, Kitagoh teaches wherein predicting the start parameter comprises predicting a first start parameter for a first work stand of the rolling mill and predicting a second start parameter for a second work stand of the rolling mill[0106].
As to claims 5 and 13, Kitagoh teaches wherein the first start parameter is a bending setpoint for a work roll of the first work stand or a tilting setpoint for the work roll of the first work stand, and wherein the second start parameter is a bending setpoint for a work roll of the second work stand or a tilting setpoint for the work roll of the second work stand [0266-0268].
As to claim 6, Kitagoh teaches wherein the first start parameter and the second start parameter are a same type of setpoint[0106].
As to claims 8, 14 and 16, Kitagoh teaches further comprising, before rolling the metal substrate, determining a probability of a bad start based on the predicted start parameter, the historical parameter, and the substrate information, and wherein starting the rolling operation comprises starting the rolling operation based on the determined probability being less than a predetermined threshold[0265 – finding the optimal].
As to claims 19, Kitagoh teaches wherein the work stand is a first work stand and the work roll is a first work roll, wherein the rolling mill comprises a second work stand comprising a second work roll, and wherein the start parameter comprises a first start parameter for the first work stand and a second start parameter for the second work stand [0106].
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(s) 3, 7, 11, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagoh (U.S. PG Pub. 2023/0011915) in view of Martin (U.S. PG Pub. 2009/0249849).
As to claims 3, 11 and 18 Kitagoh teaches, wherein the first start parameter comprises a bending setpoint for a work roll of the rolling mill[0266-0268].
Kitagoh teaches most of the claimed invention, but does not explicitly teach all of claims 3, 7, 11, 18, and 20.
As to claims 3, 11 and 18 Martin teaches wherein the second start parameter comprises a tilting setpoint for the work roll of the rolling mill[0012].
As to claim 7 and 20, Martin teaches wherein starting the rolling operation comprises starting a cold rolling operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include the teaching of Martin in the system and methods of Kitagoh. The motivation to combine is that Martin teaches to avert or resolve problems of asymmetry between the two sides of the strip, it is possible to adjust the roll gap from either side of the stand, and thus give the rolls lateral tilt. All these means for adjusting the mills may be pre-positioned before a strip is rolled which in theory makes it possible to obtain a strip with a profile of the desired thickness and which is very flat or has a controlled defect [0012].
Other Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Horii (U.S. PG Pub. 2024/0408659) teaches a cold rolling operation that tilts work rolls.
Fukushima (U.S. PG Pub. 2024/0167117) teaches predicting a temperature history for rolled steel sheets.
Tezuka (U.S. Pat. 6,230,531) teaches a tracking means for monitoring rolling operation for future use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/NATHAN L LAUGHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights