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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 13th, 2024 and January 27th, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
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 “a sliding portion formed in the rolling portion” (Claim 12, Line 5) must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. 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.
Claims 3, 8, and 14-16 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.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: for Claim 3, a starting point upon which a first height of a first central axis, a second height of a second central axis, and a third height of a third central axis is measured from; for Claim 8, a starting point upon which a first height of a first central axis, a fourth height of a fourth central axis and a fifth height of a fifth central axis is measured from.
The term “loosely” in Claim 14 (Line 2) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “loosely” 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. Thus, rendering the claim indefinite since the metes and bounds for the term have not been established.
Claims 15 and 16, which depend on Claim 14, are equally rejected.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Itagaki (JPS61262408A), hereinafter "Itagaki". For text citation of Itagaki refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 1, Itagaki discloses an asymmetric rolling device (Fig. 1) comprising: a first work roll (Fig. 1, Element 1) contacting a first surface (Fig. 1, top surface of Element 6) of a material to be rolled (Fig. 1, Element 6); a second work roll (Fig. 1, Element 2) contacting a second surface (Fig. 1, bottom surface of Element 6) of the material to be rolled (Fig. 1, Element 6) and having a second radius (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Itagaki reproduced below, second diameter defined as twice the radius) greater than a first radius (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Itagaki reproduced below, first diameter defined as twice the radius) of the first work roll so as to asymmetrically roll the material to be rolled; a drive roll (Fig. 1, Element 5) contacting the first work roll and formed above or below the first work roll (Fig. 1, formed above Element 1) so as to drive the first work roll (Fig. 1); a driving device (¶0001, Lines 20-24) driving the second work roll (¶0001, Lines 20-24) or the drive roll (¶0001, Lines 20-24); and a first idle roll (Fig. 1, Element 7) contacting the first work roll so as not to interfere with a linear movement path of the material to be rolled (as seen in Fig. 1) and formed at a front or a back (¶0001, Lines 37-39) of the first work roll to support the first work roll ( ¶0001, Lines 37-39) in a longitudinal direction of the material ( see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Itagaki reproduced below; ¶0001, Lines 37-39).
PNG
media_image1.png
625
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1st annotated Fig. 1 of Itagaki
Regarding Claim 2, Itagaki anticipates the asymmetric rolling device of Claim 1 as explained above.
Itagaki further discloses wherein the first idle roll (Fig. 1, Element 7) is formed to be spaced apart from the drive roll (Fig. 1, Element 5) by a first gap (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Itagaki reproduced above) and has a third radius smaller (see annotated Fig. 1 of Itagaki reproduced above; third diameter defined as twice the radius) than the first radius (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Itagaki reproduced above) of the first work roll so as not to interfere with a rolling path of the material to be rolled (as seen in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Itagaki anticipates the asymmetric rolling device of Claim 2 as explained above.
Itagaki further discloses wherein the first idle roll includes: a 1-1 idle roll (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Itagaki reproduced below) formed at the front (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Itagaki reproduced below; ¶0001, Lines 37-39) of the first work roll (Fig. 1, Element 1), and of which a second height (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Itagaki reproduced below, specifically Element H2) of a second central axis (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Itagaki reproduced below, specifically Element C2) is formed (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Itagaki reproduced below) to be the same as a first height (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Itagaki reproduced below, specifically Element H1) of a first central axis (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Itagaki reproduced below, specifically Element C1) of the first work roll (Fig. 1, Element 1); and a 1-2 idle roll (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Itagaki reproduced below) formed at the back of the first work roll (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Itagaki reproduced below; ¶0001, Lines 37-39), and of which a third height (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Itagaki reproduced below, specifically Element H3) of a third central axis (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Itagaki reproduced below, specifically Element C3) is formed to be the same as the first height (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Itagaki reproduced below) of the first central axis (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Itagaki reproduced below, specifically Element C1) of the first work roll (Fig. 1, Element 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
625
403
media_image2.png
Greyscale
2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Itagaki
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itagaki in view of Jeong et al. (US20120251379A1), hereinafter Jeong.
Regarding Claim 4, Itagaki anticipates the asymmetric rolling device of claim 1 as explained above.
Itagaki further discloses wherein the driving device (¶0001, Lines 20-24) drives each of the drive roll (¶0001, Lines 20-24) and the second work roll (¶0001, Lines 20-24).
Itagaki is silent on whether a first rotational linear velocity of the first work roll
is the same as a second rotational linear velocity of the second work roll.
Nonetheless, Jeong teaches wherein a driving device (Fig. 2, Element 105) drives each of a drive roll (Fig. 2, Element 103) and a second work roll (Fig. 2, Element 102) so that a first rotational linear velocity (¶0052) of a first work roll (¶0052; Fig. 2, Element 101) is the same as a second rotational linear velocity (¶0052) of the second work roll (¶0052).
Itagaki and Jeong are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of asymmetrical rolling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Jeong wherein the driving device drives each of the drive roll and the second work roll so that a first rotational linear velocity of the first work roll is the same as a second rotational linear velocity of the second work roll into the asymmetrical rolling device disclosed by Itagaki to perform asymmetric rolling in which the material to be rolled doesn’t slip unlike in the different speed rolling, so that surface roughness doesn’t occur, and the warping of the material to rolled is substantially reduced (¶0074).
Regarding Claim 5, the prior art combination of Itagaki and Jeong renders the asymmetric rolling device of claim 4 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Itagaki and Jeong further teaches wherein the driving device drives the drive roll and the second work roll at the same rotational angular velocity (Jeong - ¶0052) , and a fourth radius of the drive roll (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Itagaki reproduced above, fourth diameter defined as twice the radius) and the second radius (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Itagaki reproduced above, second diameter defined as twice the radius) of the second work roll are the same to each other (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Itagaki reproduced above) so that the first rotational linear velocity of the first work roll is the same as the second rotational linear velocity of the second work roll (Jeong - ¶0052).
Claims 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itagaki in view of Kobayashi et al. (US4918965A), hereinafter "Kobayashi".
Regarding Claim 6, Itagaki anticipates the asymmetric rolling device of claim 1 as explained above.
Itagaki fails to disclose further including a first guide roll contacting the first idle roll and formed at a front or a back of the first idle roll so as to support the first idle roll in a longitudinal direction of the material or in a circumferential direction of the drive roll.
Nonetheless, Kobayashi teaches a first guide roll (Fig. 1, Element 3) contacting a first idle roll (Fig. 1, Element 4) and formed at a front or a back (see annotated Fig. 1(a) of Kobayashi reproduced below) of the first idle roll so as to support (Column 5, Lines 17-26) the first idle roll in a longitudinal direction (see annotated Fig. 1(a) of Kobayashi reproduced below) of the material (Fig. 1, Element 10) or in a circumferential direction of the drive roll.
Itagaki and Kobayashi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rolling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Kobayashi into the asymmetric rolling device disclosed by Itagaki and include a first guide roll contacting the first idle roll and formed at a front or a back of the first idle roll so as to support the first idle roll in a longitudinal direction of the material or in a circumferential direction of the drive roll to provide stable support to the first idle roll (Column 6, Lines 23-27) so that the rolling operation can be carried out stably with high accuracy (Column 3, Lines 55-61).
PNG
media_image3.png
493
448
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1(a) of Kobayashi
Regarding Claim 9, the prior art combination of Itagaki and Kobayashi renders the asymmetric rolling device of Claim 6 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Itagaki and Kobayashi further teaches wherein the first guide roll (Kobayashi - Fig. 1, Element 3) is formed to be spaced apart from the drive roll (Kobayashi - Fig. 1, Element 6) by a second gap (see annotated Fig. 1(a) of Kobayashi reproduced above).
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art combination of Itagaki and Kobayashi renders the asymmetric rolling device of Claim 6 unpatentable as explained above.
In the current state, the prior art combination of Itagaki and Kobayashi fails to teach further including a second idle roll contacting the first guide roll and formed at a front or a back of the first guide roll so as to support the first guide roll in the longitudinal direction of the material or the circumferential direction of the drive roll.
Nonetheless, Kobayashi further teaches a second idle roll (Fig. 1(b), Element 1) contacting the first guide roll (Kobayashi - Fig. 1, Element 3) and formed at a front or a back (Kobayashi - Fig. 1) of the first guide roll so as to support the first guide roll in the longitudinal direction (see annotated Fig. 1(a) of Kobayashi reproduced above; Column 5, Lines 17-24) of the material (Fig. 1(a), Element 10) or the circumferential direction of the drive roll.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate these teachings of Kobayashi of including a second idle roll contacting the first guide roll and formed at a front or a back of the first guide roll so as to support the first guide roll in the longitudinal direction of the material or the circumferential direction of the drive roll into the asymmetric rolling device disclosed by Itagaki and modified by Kobayashi to provide support to the first guide roll (Column 5, Lines 17-24) and carry out the rolling operation stably with high accuracy (Column 3, Lines 55-61).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itagaki in view of Kobayashi as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of Verbickas et al. (US4197731A), hereinafter "Verbickas".
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art combination of Itagaki and Kobayashi renders the asymmetric rolling device of Claim 6 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Itagaki and Kobayashi further teaches wherein the first guide roll (Kobayashi - Fig. 1, Element 3) has a fifth radius (see annotated Fig. 1(a) of Kobayashi reproduced above; fifth diameter defined as twice the radius) greater than the first radius of the first work roll or greater than a third radius (see annotated Fig. 1(a) of Kobayashi reproduced above; third diameter defined as twice the radius) of the first idle roll so as not to interfere with a rolling path of the material to be rolled (Fig. 1, Element 10).
The prior art combination of Itagaki and Kobayashi fails to teach wherein the first guide roll contacts the drive roll.
Nonetheless, Verbickas teaches wherein a first guide roll (Fig. 1, Elements 22 and 25) contacts a drive roll (Fig. 1, Element 27).
Itagaki, Kobayashi, and Verbickas are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rolling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Verbickas into the asymmetric rolling device disclosed by Itagaki and modified by Kobayashi so that the first guide roll contacts the drive roll to provide lateral support to the drive roll (Column 1, Lines 51-59).
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art combination of Itagaki, Kobayashi, and Verbickas renders the asymmetric rolling device of Claim 7 unpatentable as explained above.
In the current state, the prior art combination Itagaki, Kobayashi, and Verbickas fails to teach wherein the first guide roll includes: a 1-1 guide roll formed at the front of the first work roll, and of which a fourth height of a fourth central axis is formed to be greater than a first height of a first central axis of the first work roll; and a 1-2 guide roll formed at the back of the first work roll, and of which a fifth height of a fifth central axis is formed to be greater than the first height of the first central axis of the first work roll.
Nonetheless, Verbickas further teaches wherein the first guide roll (Fig. 1, Elements 22 and 25) includes: a 1-1 guide roll (Fig. 1, Element 22) formed at the front of the first work roll (Fig. 1, Element 30), and of which a fourth height (see annotated Fig. 1 of Verbickas reproduced below, specifically Element H4) of a fourth central axis (see annotated Fig. 1 of Verbickas reproduced below, specifically Element C4) is formed to be greater than a first height (see annotated Fig. 1 of Verbickas reproduced below, specifically Element H1) of a first central axis (see annotated Fig. 1 of Verbickas reproduced below, specifically Element C1) of the first work roll; and a 1-2 guide roll (Fig. 1, Element 25) formed at the back of the first work roll, and of which a fifth height (see annotated Fig. 1 of Verbickas reproduced below, specifically Element H5) of a fifth central axis (see annotated Fig. 1 of Verbickas reproduced below, specifically Element C5) is formed to be greater than the first height of the first central axis of the first work roll.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate these teachings of Verbickas wherein the first guide roll includes a 1-1 guide roll formed at the front of the first work roll, and of which a fourth height of a fourth central axis is formed to be greater than a first height of a first central axis of the first work roll; and a 1-2 guide roll formed at the back of the first work roll, and of which a fifth height of a fifth central axis is formed to be greater than the first height of the first central axis of the first work roll into the asymmetric rolling device disclosed by Itagaki and modified by Kobayashi and Verbickas to provide two identical side support assemblies (Column 2, Lines 1-2).
PNG
media_image4.png
735
455
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Verbickas
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itagaki in view of Kobayashi as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of Kummerhoff (US5007273A), hereinafter "Kummerhoff".
Regarding Claim 11, the prior art combination of Itagaki and Kobayashi renders the asymmetric rolling device of Claim 10 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Itagaki and Kobayashi fails to teach further including a second guide roll contacting the second idle roll and formed at a front or a back of the second idle roll so as to support the second idle roll in the longitudinal direction of the material or the circumferential direction of the drive roll.
Nonetheless, Kummerhoff teaches a second guide roll (Fig. 1, Element 8) contacting a second idle roll (Fig. 1, Element 7) and formed at a front or a back (see annotated Fig. 1 of Kummerhuff reproduced below) so as to support the second idle roll (Fig. 1; Column 2, Lines 62-64) in the longitudinal direction (see annotated Fig. 1 of Kummerhuff reproduced below) of the material (Fig. 1, Element 11) or the circumferential direction of the drive roll.
Itagaki, Kobayashi, and Kummerhuff are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rolling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Kummerhuff into the asymmetric rolling device disclosed by Itagaki and modified by Kobayashi and include a second guide roll contacting the second idle roll and formed at a back of the second idle roll so as to support the second idle roll in the longitudinal direction of the material to provide support to the second idle roll (Column 2, Lines 62-64) and reduce a risk of slip (Abstract).
PNG
media_image5.png
633
588
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Kummerhuff
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itagaki in view of Tao (CN110883094A), hereinafter "Tao". For text citation of Tao refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 12, Itagaki anticipates the asymmetric rolling device of Claim 1 as explained above.
Itagaki further discloses wherein the first work roll (Fig. 1, Element 1) includes: a rolling portion (Fig.1, Element 1, outside surface) contacting the material (Fig. 1, Element 6) to be rolled so as to roll the material to be rolled (Fig. 1; ¶0001, Lines 1-12).
Itagaki fails to disclose a joint portion formed in the rolling portion so that the rolling portion is joint-moved articulated in the longitudinal direction of the material; and a sliding portion formed in the rolling portion so that the rolling portion slides in an axial direction while rotating.
Nonetheless, Tao teaches a joint portion (see annotated Fig.3 of Tao reproduced below) formed in the rolling portion (Fig. 1, Element 7) so that the rolling portion is joint-moved articulated in the longitudinal direction of the material; and a sliding portion (Fig. 1, Element 5) formed in the rolling portion so that the rolling portion slides in an axial direction while rotating (Fig. 1).
Itagaki and Tao are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rolling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Tao of using a joint portion formed in the rolling portion so that the rolling portion is joint-moved articulated in the longitudinal direction of the material; and a sliding portion formed in the rolling portion so that the rolling portion slides in an axial direction while rotating into the asymmetric rolling device disclosed by Itagaki to enable convenient and rapid adjustment of the overall shape of the rolling device and meet the needs of rolling a variety of shaped materials during the rolling process (¶0015).
PNG
media_image6.png
393
522
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Tao
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itagaki in view of Tao as applied to Claim 12 above, and further in view of Harris (ES2211999T3), hereinafter "Harris". For text citation of Harris refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 13, the prior art combination of Itagaki and Tao renders the asymmetric rolling device of Claim 12 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Itagaki and Tao fails to teach wherein the joint portion is formed by selecting at least one of a joint ball, an angular contact bearing, and combinations thereof, which is installed in a shaft hole portion concavely formed at an end portion of the rolling portion.
Nonetheless, Harris teaches wherein a joint portion (Fig. 3, Element 20) is formed by selecting at least one of a joint ball (Fig. 3, Element 20), an angular contact bearing, and combinations thereof, which is installed in a shaft hole portion concavely (Fig. 3, Element 22) formed at an end portion of the rolling portion (Fig. 3, Element 22).
Itagaki, Tao, and Harris are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rolling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Harris wherein the joint portion is formed by a joint ball, which is installed in a shaft hole portion concavely formed at an end portion of the rolling portion into the asymmetric rolling device disclosed by Itagaki and modified by Tao to allow a certain degree of lateral rotation (Page 4, Lines 25-26).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itagaki in view of Kobayashi as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of Maust et al. (US3398022A), hereinafter "Maust", Pan et al. (CN204018375U), hereinafter "Pan", and Park (KR200464444Y1), hereinafter "Park". For text citation of Pan and Park refer to the machine translations provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 17, the prior art combination of Itagaki and Kobayashi renders the asymmetric rolling device of Claim 6 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Itagaki and Kobayashi further teaches wherein the first guide roll (Kobayashi - Fig. 1, Element 3) includes: a contact portion contacting the first idle roll (Kobayashi - Fig. 1, Element 4) (as seen in Figs. 1(a)-1(b) and 2-3; Column 6, Lines 18-20).
The prior art combination of Itagaki and Kobayashi fails to teach a contact portion in which at least one rolling oil injecting groove portion is formed; a shaft portion in which one end portion is fixed to a cassette body and the other end portion is inserted into a concave portion concavely formed at an end portion of the contact portion; and at least one self-aligning bearing formed between the contact portion and the shaft portion so that a rotation center of the contact portion is aligned and rotated.
Nonetheless, Maust teaches a contact portion (Fig. 1, Element 25) in which at least one rolling oil injecting groove portion is formed (Fig. 1, Element 29).
Itagaki, Kobayashi, and Maust are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rolling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Maust of having a contact portion in which at least one rolling oil injecting groove portion is formed into the asymmetric rolling device disclosed by Itagaki and modified by Kobayashi to include a rolling groove portion wherein the groove portion allows oil to e collected within the groove (Column 3, Lines 2-3; Column 3, Lines 7-8).
The prior art combination of Itagaki, Kobayashi, and Maust fail to teach a shaft portion in which one end portion is fixed to a cassette body and the other end portion is inserted into a concave portion concavely formed at an end portion of the contact portion; and at least one self-aligning bearing formed between the contact portion and the shaft portion so that a rotation center of the contact portion is aligned and rotated.
Nonetheless, Pan teaches a shaft portion (Fig. 1, Element 61) in which one end portion is fixed to a cassette body (Fig. 1, Element 3) and the other end is inserted into a concave portion (Fig. 1, Element 62) concavely formed at an end portion of the contact portion (Fig. 1, Element 6).
Itagaki, Kobayashi, Maust, and Pan are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rolling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the first guide roll of the asymmetric rolling device disclosed by Itagaki and modified by Kobayashi and Maust based on the teachings of Pan to include a shaft portion in which one end portion is fixed to a cassette body and the other end portion is inserted into a concave portion concavely formed at an end portion of the contact portion to provide an adjustable rolling device, wherein the roll and its length are adjustable (¶0009).
The prior art combination of Itagaki, Kobayashi, Maust, and Pan fails to teach at least one self-aligning bearing formed between the contact portion and the shaft portion so that a rotation center of the contact portion is aligned and rotated.
Nonetheless, Park teaches a self-aligning bearing (Fig. 4, Element 5) formed between a concave portion (Fig. 4, Element 11) and a shaft portion (see annotated Fig. 4 of Park reproduced below).
Itagaki, Kobayashi, Maust, Pan, and Park are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rolling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the first guide roll of the asymmetric rolling device disclosed by Itagaki and modified by Kobayashi, Maust, and Pan based on the teachings of Park to include self-aligning bearing formed between the contact portion and the shaft to provide means for rotating the work roll (Park - Claims).
PNG
media_image7.png
337
388
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Park
Regarding Claim 18, the prior art combination of Itagaki, Kobayashi, Maust, Pan, and Park renders the asymmetric rolling device of Claim 17 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Itagaki, Kobayashi, Maust, Pan, and Park further teaches wherein the rolling oil injecting groove portion (Maust - Fig. 1, Element 29) includes a circumferential linear groove (Maust - Fig. 1, Element 29) formed in a ring-type linear groove shape (Maust - Fig. 1, Element 29) along a circumference of the contact portion (Maust - Fig. 1, Element 25).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Double Patenting
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 2 of copending Application No. 18874956 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 2 of the reference application anticipates Claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 4 of copending Application No. 18874956 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 4 of the reference application anticipates Claim 6.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 17 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 16 of copending Application No. 18874956 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 16 of the reference application anticipates Claim 17.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 18 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 17 of copending Application No. 18874956 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 17 of the reference application anticipates Claim 18.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US2118284A & DE3610889A - Asymmetric rolling
JPH05317917A & JPS62144803A - Multi-stage rolling
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALONDRA MICHELLE ORTIZ-ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9539. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5PM ET.
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.
/A.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights