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 .
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 1-4, 8-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horii et al. (hereafter “Hori”)(US 2023/0149994).
With regards to claims 1 and 11, Hori discloses a rolling mill and method of rolling a metal strip comprising:
a mill roll (730, 720, 710, 711, 721 or 731);
a plurality of hydraulic cylinders (715, 717) including a drive side cylinder that is configured to apply force in an axial direction to the mill roll and is provided on a drive side of the mill roll, and a work side hydraulic cylinder that is configured to apply force in the axial direction and is provided on a work side of the mill roll [as discussed in at least paragraphs 0056, 0104, 0110]; and
a hydraulic circuit, as seen in at least Figure 6, configured to send a hydraulic oil to the plurality of hydraulic cylinders so that the drive side hydraulic cylinder and the work side hydraulic cylinder move in the axial direction to hold a position of the mill roll in the axial direction,
wherein the hydraulic circuit is configured such that after the hydraulic circuit holds a position of the mill roll in the axial direction, in a case (that is, Hori’s mill is capable of) where only a hydraulic cylinder on one side between the drive side hydraulic cylinder and the work side hydraulic cylinder becomes a state of applying force in the axial direction to the mill roll due to external force received by the mill roll, a hydraulic cylinder on another side between the drive side hydraulic cylinder and the work side hydraulic cylinder moves in a direction opposite to the hydraulic cylinder on the one side, [as seen in at least Figure 6 and as discussed in at least paragraphs 0056, 0104, 0110].
With regards to claims 2 and 12, Hori discloses wherein in the hydraulic circuit, a drive-side strip-side hydraulic oil chamber and a work- side side-opposite-to-strip hydraulic oil chamber are connected to each other through a pipe and a drive-side side-opposite-to-strip hydraulic oil chamber and a work-side strip-side hydraulic oil chamber are connected to each other through a pipe so that each of the drive side hydraulic cylinder and the work side hydraulic cylinder applies force to the mill roll in a same direction [it is noted that chambers are not labeled but it is considered to be inherent that the hydraulic cylinders have chambers as claimed – pipes are pressure lines and at least paragraphs 0104, 0122, 0131].
With regards to claims 3-13, Hori discloses wherein the hydraulic circuit is configured such that when a hydraulic cylinder on one side between the drive side hydraulic cylinder and the work side hydraulic cylinder moves by a predetermined stroke, a hydraulic cylinder on another side between the drive side hydraulic cylinder and the work side hydraulic cylinder also moves in an opposite direction by the predetermined stroke without changing an amount of oil in the coupled pipes [as discussed in at least paragraphs 0157-0161, it is noted that the control device 80 and valves regulate the amount of oil]
With regards to claim 4, Hori discloses wherein the drive side hydraulic cylinder and the work side hydraulic cylinder are double rod cylinders,
a drive-side strip-side hydraulic oil chamber and a drive-side side-opposite-to- strip hydraulic oil chamber have a same cross-sectional area in a direction in which force of the hydraulic oil is applied,
a work-side strip-side hydraulic oil chamber and a work-side side-opposite-to- strip hydraulic oil chamber have a same cross-sectional area in a direction in which force of the hydraulic oil is applied, and
the drive-side strip-side hydraulic oil chamber and the work-side side-opposite- to-strip hydraulic oil chamber are connected to each other through a pipe, and the drive-side side-opposite-to-strip hydraulic oil chamber and the work-side strip-side hydraulic oil chamber are connected to each other through a pipe, as seen in at least Figures 6-9.
With regards to claim 8, Hori discloses wherein the drive side hydraulic cylinder and the work-side hydraulic cylinder are provided on each of an entry side and an exit side of the rolling mill, and pipes for coupling corresponding hydraulic oil chambers on the entry side and the exit side are provided [pipes are pressure lines as discussed in at least paragraphs 0104, 0122, 0131].
With regards to claim 8, Hori discloses wherein a controller (80) for controlling drive of the plurality of hydraulic cylinders is provided, and the controller is configured to be capable of shifting the mill roll in the axial direction by causing the drive side hydraulic cylinder and the work-side hydraulic cylinder to be driven [ at least paragraphs 0057, 0113-0115].
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori in view of Kazehari et al. (hereafter “Kazehari”)(JP2018/164923).
Hori discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein a horizontal direction actuator for adjusting an angle of the mill roll in a horizontal direction is provided. Kazehari is relied upon to teach a horizontal direction actuator (16) for adjusting an angle of the mill roll in a horizontal direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hori’s mill with an actuator for adjusting the angle because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and further show the state of the art: US 2003/0097866.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M EKIERT whose telephone number is (571)272-1901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM EST.
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.
/TERESA M EKIERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
