DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S 6041283 Y2, hereinafter JPS.
Regarding claim 1, JPS discloses a rolling mill (Fig. 1-13) comprising at least one stand configured to roll a material (2) to be rolled, wherein at least one stand includes: at least one pair of rolling mill rolls (1); a roll chock (5) that rotatably support the rolling mill rolls; and a roll chock liner that includes a first liner plate (11) mounted on the roll chock, a second liner plate (7) stacked on the first liner plate in a rolling direction, and an elastic member (12) interposed between the first liner plate and the second liner plate.
JPS is silent to the rolling mill having a plurality of stands.
Examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add to the rolling mill with multiple stands that are the same structure as the stand of JPS in order to reach specific thickness of the material being rolled. Examiner notes that providing multiple roll stands are well-known in the art of rolling to produce effective rolling thickness reduction to reach desired product thickness.
Regarding claim 2, JPS teaches the rolling mill according to claim 1, wherein the stands are each provided with the roll chock liner including the first liner plate, the second liner plate, and the elastic member. (as modified all stands would have the same structure)
Regarding claim 3, JPS teaches the rolling mill according to claim 1, wherein the first liner plate (11) is fastened to the roll chock (5) with a fastener (17) passed through the first liner plate in the rolling direction, and each of the second liner plate (7) and the elastic member (12) has an opening (see Fig. 8-12: 7 and 12 have openings that allows 17 to go through) in which a head of the fastener is housed.
Regarding claim 4, JPS teaches the rolling mill according to claim 2, wherein the first liner plate is fastened to the roll chock with a fastener passed through the first liner plate in the rolling direction, and each of the second liner plate and the elastic member has an opening in which a head of the fastener is housed. (See claim 3 rejection)
Regarding claim 5, JPS teaches a rolling method of rolling a material using the rolling mill according to claim 1.
JPS is silent to a cold rolling method comprising a step of cold- rolling a material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used cold rolling method between cold or hot rolling option. Also, since JPS is silent to a heating unit or furnace it would have been obvious to have used cold rolling option rather than hot. See MPEP 2143 Section I (E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success
Regarding claim 6, JPS teaches a steel sheet manufacturing method comprising a step of manufacturing a sheet material as a material to be rolled, using the cold rolling method according to claim 5.
JPS is silent to the sheet material being steel sheet.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used steel sheet since steel sheets are well known material to be rolled. See MPEP 2143 Section I (E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBY YEONJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1866. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm.
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 on (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.
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights