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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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.
Claims 12, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uijtdebroeks et al. US 2010/0089112 A1 in view of Seidel et al. DE 102009053073 A1 and Kimura et al. JP H0679728 B2. US 2010/0089112 A1 is a published patent application hereinafter to be referred to as the Uijtdebroeks patent; DE 102009053073 A1 is a published patent application hereinafter to be referred to as the Seidel patent; and JP H0679728 B2 is a published patent hereinafter to be referred to as the Kimura patent.
Regarding claim 12, Uijtdebroeks discloses a rolling stand for metallic products comprising a pair of work rolls (Uijtdebroeks – Upper Roll 1, Lower Roll 2; FIG. 2B); a pair of back-up rolls (See Uijtdebroeks FIG. 2B below); at least one water pillow cooling device (Uijtdebroeks – Box Section 6A, Box Section 6B; FIG. 2B) including a plurality of nozzles (Uijtdebroeks – Nozzles 41; FIG. 2B) capable of spraying a plurality of cooling jets under pressure onto one of the work rolls, exits of the nozzles being arranged along a curved surface of the at least one water pillow cooling device (Uijtdebroeks Para [0046]: the cooling installation as in the invention comprises an upper box 6A facing the upper roll 1 and a lower box 6B facing the lower roll 2. Each box 6A, 6B has a concave surface 42 opposite the corresponding roll 1,2. This concave surface 42 comprises a wall with several apertures of a specified size forming straight nozzles 41 and forming a specified pattern.), a curvature of the curved surface of the at least one water pillow cooling device being greater than a radius of the one work roll (Uijtdebroeks Para [0022]: The radius of the cylindrical concave surface of the front advantageously has a value higher than the predetermined maximum value of a cylinder radius); and a plate (Uijtdebroeks – Plate; Para [0020]) placed between the at least one water pillow cooling device and the one work roll, the plate being concave and with a curvature such that a gap between the removable plate and the one work roll is constant or increases when moving in a direction of the at least one back-up roll, the gap being from 5 to 200 mm (Uijtdebroeks Para [0028]: the cooling head is positioned close to the surface of the cylinder in order to create a gap of between 5 and 200 mm between the front of the box and said surface of the cylinder), the plate having holes to allow the cooling jets passing through the holes in the plate (Uijtdebroeks Para [0020]: the front comprises a plate or sheet in which are positioned or machined the nozzles whose apertures are made of little holes of straight axial cross-section.). Uijtdebroeks fails to disclose a removable plate and the curvature of the plate being smaller than the curvature of the curved surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
594
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Uijtdebroeks FIG. 2B
Seidel teaches a replaceable plate (Seidel – Cooling Plate 47; FIG. 6)(Seidel Para [0058]: Fig. 6 shows that a completely replaceable cooling tray plate 47).
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 plate of the water cooling device as disclosed by Uijtdebroeks, to be removable, as taught by Seidel, to allow access to the water pillow cooling device, wherein the plate and/or water pillow cooling device can be replaced entirely or separately as individual components (See Seidel Para [0058]: it is possible to replace the entire cooling bowl with mouthpiece or separately.).
Kimura teaches the curvature of the plate being changed according to the diameter of the work roll (Kimura Description Page 5, Lines 27-28), wherein the curvature of the plate can be set to be smaller than the curvature of the curved surface. 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 plate of the water cooling device as disclosed by Uijtdebroeks, to have a plate curvature to be adjusted according to the diameter of the work roll so as to obtain an appropriate cooling water passage (Kimura Description Page 5, Lines 18-20). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the curvature of the removable plate smaller than the curvature of the curved surface depending on the diameter of the roll to ensure sufficient cooling of the roll.
Regarding claim 15, Uijtdebroeks in view of Seidel and Kimura discloses the rolling stand according to claim 12 (See claim 12 rejection above), wherein the water pillow cooling device is capable of spraying from 100 to 700 m3 /hour of coolant per square meter of the work roll surface and at a pressure from 0.5 to 6 bar (Uijtdebroeks Para [0030]: the pressure of the liquid coolant is adjusted to a value of between 1 and 6 bar and the specific flow rate between 100 and 500 m3 /hour/m2).
Regarding claim 16, Uijtdebroeks in view of Seidel and Kimura discloses the rolling stand according to claim 15 (See claim 15 rejection above) wherein the water pillow cooling device is capable of spraying from 300 to 700 m3 /hour of coolant per square meter of work roll surface and at a pressure from 2 to 6 bar (Uijtdebroeks Para [0030]: the pressure of the liquid coolant is adjusted to a value of between 1 and 6 bar and the specific flow rate between 100 and 500 m3 /hour/m2).
Regarding claim 17, Uijtdebroeks in view of Seidel and Kimura discloses method for cooling the work roll in the rolling stand according to claim 12 (see claim 12 rejection above) comprising spraying a coolant via the at least one water pillow cooling device towards the one work roll; and producing a coolant pillow in a highly turbulent state in the gap between the one work roll (Uijtdebroeks Para [0045]: the cooling head is designed to implement WPC technology, i.e. with a view to create a pillow of highly turbulent water between the cooling head and the surface of the work roll.; Para [0047]: The water pillow is formed in the gap restricted by the roll and the cooling head) and the removable plate (Seidel – 47).
Regarding claim 18, Uijtdebroeks in view of Seidel and Kimura discloses method for cooling the work roll in the rolling stand according to claim 17 (see claim 17 rejection above), wherein the coolant is sprayed at a rate from 100 to 600 m3/h per square meter of work roll surface and at pressure from 0.5 to 6 bar (Uijtdebroeks Para [0027]: Another aspect of the present invention relates to a method for cooling a work cylinder in a rolling stand; Para [0030]: the pressure of the liquid coolant is adjusted to a value of between 1 and 6 bar and the specific flow rate between 100 and 500 m3/hour/m2, in order to create in the above-mentioned gap a liquid pillow in a highly turbulent state.)
Regarding claim 19, Uijtdebroeks in view of Seidel and Kimura discloses method for cooling the work roll in the rolling stand according to claim 18 (see claim 18 rejection above), herein the coolant is sprayed at a rate from 100 to 600 m3/h per square meter of work roll surface and at pressure from 0.5 to 6 bar (Uijtdebroeks Para [0027]: Another aspect of the present invention relates to a method for cooling a work cylinder in a rolling stand; Para [0030]: the pressure of the liquid coolant is adjusted to a value of between 1 and 6 bar and the specific flow rate between 100 and 500 m3 /hour/m2, in order to create in the above-mentioned gap a liquid pillow in a highly turbulent state.)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uijtdebroeks in view of Seidel and Kimura as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Wang et al. CN 105215060 B. CN 105215060 B is a published patent application hereinafter to be referred to as the Wang patent.
Regarding claim 13, Uijtdebroeks in view of Seidel and Kimura discloses the rolling stand according to claim 12 (See claim 12 rejection above), wherein the rolling stand includes a removable plate. However, Uijtdebroeks in view of Seidel and Kimura fails to disclose the removable plate includes a metal layer and a protective layer preventing corrosion. Wang teaches a rolling stand wherein a guide plate (Wang – Movable Guide 22; FIG. 3) includes a metal layer (Wang – Steel Body 22b; FIG. 3) and a protective layer preventing corrosion (Wang – Nylon Lining Plate 22a; FIG. 3). It is known within the art that nylon is highly resistant to corrosion.
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 removable plate disclosed in Uijtdebroeks in view of Seidel and Kimura, to include a metal layer and a protective layer preventing corrosion, as taught by Wang, wherein it is known within the art that nylon is highly resistant to corrosion and to prevent scratches (Wang Description Page 3, Lines 34-35: the nylon lining board can prevent the movable guide action in the process of the band steel lower surface being scratched.).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uijtdebroeks in view of Seidel, Kimura and Wang as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Wesero Maschienbau DE 29921798 U1 and Qi et al. CN 110617297 A. DE 29921798 U1 is a published patent hereinafter to be referred to as the Wesero patent; and CN 110617297 A is a published patent hereinafter to be referred to as the Qi patent.
Regarding claim 14, Uijtdebroeks in view of Seidel, Kimura and Wang discloses the rolling stand according to claim 13 (See claim 13 rejection above), however, Uijtdebroeks in view of Seidel, Kimura and Wang fails to disclose the metal layer is stainless- steel and the protective layer is silicon.
Wesero teaches a guide plate made of stainless steel (Wesero Description Page 2, Line 1: The guide plates are usually made of stainless steel). 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 metal layer of the removal plate as disclosed by Uijtdebroeks in view of Seidel, Kimura and Wang to be stainless steel, as taught by Wesero, when it is known within the art that stainless steel is corrosion resistant.
Qi teaches guide plate (Qi – Guide Plate 6; FIG. 3) comprised of a rubber layer (Qi – Rubber Layer 601; FIG. 3). It is known within the art that silicone is considered a type of rubber. 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 protective layer of the removable plate disclosed by Uijtdebroeks in view of Seidel, Kimura and Wang, to be rubber, as taught by Qi, wherein the rubber layer prevents the removable plate from scratching the surface of the working roll (See Qi, Description Page 3-4, Last Line: a rubber layer 601 provided on the guide plate 6, the cold rolled steel band 2 forms protection to prevent cold rolled steel belt 2 scratch, affect the surface of the cold rolled steel strip 2 quality.) Uijtdebroeks in view of Seidel, Kimura, Wang, Wesero, and Qi discloses the claimed invention except for silicone which is made of silicon. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the rubber with silicone, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Conclusion
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
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights