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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 21-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected process, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 3, 2022.
Claim Objections
Claim 60 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “mechanism” is repeated in the phrase “at least one driving mechanism mechanism.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,229,963 to Savinov in view of DE 10 2017 214961 A1 to Busch.
Regarding claim 41, Savinov teaches an apparatus for cross sectional reducing and straightening a specimen (Abstract) comprising:
a plurality of die segments 2 wherein each die segment has a contact face (Figs. 1-4, Col. 4, Lns. 13-39);
at least one of the die segments 2 wherein the contact face has at least two planar surfaces that intersect to form a cross-sectional convex feature configured to provide a negative concave feature on the specimen transverse to the longitudinal motion of the specimen (Fig. 4 shows that the side profile of the contact surface of the die segment includes two planar surfaces that intersect to form a cross-sectional convex feature that is capable of providing a negative concave feature on a specimen, and it is noted that the claim limitation is directed to at least one of the die segments having these features being capable of forming a negative concave feature which the die in Savinov is capable of doing when acting alone, i.e., if the other dies were not also impacting the other portions of the rod any die alone is capable of reducing the workpiece such that a negative concave feature is formed transverse to the longitudinal motion of the specimen);
the plurality of die segments 2 configured such that the contact face of each die segment is opposed by the contact face of at least one other die segment 2 to form at least one set of opposing die segments (Fig. 3);
at least one die gap determined by the distance between the contact faces of the at least one set of opposing die segments 2 (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, Lns. 31-52; each of the die segments 2 move towards and away from the workpiece to define a gap between the faces of the opposing die segments);
at least one die driving mechanism 8, 10 translating at least one die segment 2 in a transverse translational motion directed toward the opposing die segment (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, Lns. 40-64);
a plurality of die constraining mechanisms 5 configured such that the transverse translational motion of the plurality of die segments is perpendicular to the longitudinal translational motion of the specimen (Figs. 1-3; Col. 4, Lns. 40-52 and Col. 5, Lns. 3-15), wherein the plurality of die constraining mechanisms 5 is comprised of a plurality of sliding journals configured to guide and constrain to one axis, the motion of the die segments (Figs. 1-3; Col. 4, Lns. 40-52 and Col. 5, Lns. 3-15; the frames 17 constrain the sliding journals to one axis).
Savinov fails to explicitly teach the axis of motion of the plurality of die segments is not constrained to converge on a radial center.
Busch teaches an apparatus for cross sectional reducing and straightening a specimen (Abstract) including a plurality of die segments 3 (Figs. 2-3) and the plurality of die segments configured such that the axis of motion of the plurality of die segments is not constrained to converge on a radial center (Figs. 2-4; Paras [0028]-[0029]; the position of the die segments 3 may be adjusted via a gear 5 and spindle 6 such that the path of movement, i.e., the axis of motion, of each die segment may be adjusted to a different plane so that the die segment moves towards a different area in the radial center, i.e., the die segments may be adjusted so that each of their paths of movement converges to a different location in the center).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus for straightening of Savinov to include the die segment adjusting mechanism of Busch so that adjustments to the position and path of movement of the die segments may be performed without having to change the tools or other components of the apparatus (Busch, Para. [0026]).
Claims 42, 46-49, and 51-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savinov in view of Busch in further view of US 4,899,570 to Mills.
Regarding claim 42, modified Savinov teaches the apparatus for non-radial cross-sectional reduction of a specimen of claim 41 (Figs. 1 and 3), further comprising the at least one die driving mechanism 5 configured to provide a reciprocating transverse translational motion to at least one die segment and a synchronous reciprocating transverse translational motion to the plurality of die segments, whereby the at least one die gap opens and closes (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, Lns. 20-27 and 31-52; the driving mechanisms 8, 10 are connected to a common drive 3 such that each driving mechanism 8, 10 moves a die segment 2 and the die segments 2 are moved synchronously via the common drive 3);
wherein the reciprocating transverse transitional motion of the opposing die segments being less than the predetermined reduction (Figs. 1-4; it is noted that this claim is directed to an apparatus, and the apparatus is capable of providing the reciprocating translational motion that is less than the predetermined reduction because the predetermined reduction is dependent on the workpiece provided to the apparatus, i.e., the predetermined reduction may be very large);
whereby the specimen will be reduced, stretch straightened, elongated, and have enhanced mechanical properties (Figs. 1-4; it is noted that this claim is directed to apparatus, and as Savinov teaches an apparatus including the claimed features for reducing, straightening, elongating and enhancing the mechanical properties of the workpiece, Savinov teaches an apparatus capable of producing a specimen with such features).
Savinov fails to explicitly teach an exit tensioning device; wherein the exit tensioning device is configured to grip a specimen, maintain a continuous tension on the specimen, longitudinally translate the specimen through the at least one die gap, and cross sectionally reduce the specimen by a predetermined reduction, the continuous tension being insufficient to provide the longitudinal translational motion to the specimen when the at least one die gap closes.
Mills teaches an apparatus for cross sectional reducing and straightening a specimen (Abstract; Fig. 1) including a plurality of die segments 12A-D (Fig. 3) and an exit tensioning device 22 (Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 33-52); wherein the exit tensioning device 22 is configured to grip a specimen and maintain a continuous tension on the specimen causing the specimen to move with a translational motion through the at least one die gap and cross sectionally reducing the specimen by a predetermined reduction (Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 33-52; the motor driven means 23 of the tensioning device make it configured to, i.e., capable of, maintain a continuous tension of the workpiece as it moves through the dies), the continuous tension being insufficient to provide the translational motion to the specimen during the compression phase (Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 33-52; it is noted that this is an apparatus claim, and therefore this element is interpreted as the exit tensioning device is capable of providing a continuous tension that is insufficient, which the tensioning device in Mills is capable of doing via the motor reducing the tension by the jaw).
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 apparatus of Savinov to include the powered jaw of Mills so that as the workpiece is being controlled and moved through the dies (Savinov, Col. 6, Lns. 20-21; “[t]he workpiece L being handled travels lengthwise said axis of forging”) the orientation and movement of the workpiece may be precisely controlled via the powered jaws of Mills handling the workpiece.
Regarding claim 46, modified Savinov teaches the apparatus for non-radial cross-sectional reduction of a specimen of claim 42 (Figs. 1 and 3) wherein the die driving mechanism 8, 10 is comprised of a powered, rotating eccentric shaft 13 attached to the die segment 2 through a connecting linkage 7, 8, 9, 10 (Figs. 1-4; Col. 5, Lns. 54-57).
Regarding claim 47, modified Savinov teaches the apparatus for non-radial cross-sectional reduction of a specimen of claim 42 (Figs. 1 and 3) wherein the die driving mechanism is comprised of an actuator 3 from the group of actuators consisting of electrical, hydraulic, and pneumatic (Fig. 4; Col. 3, Lns. 8-11 and Col. 4, Lns. 31-39; any conventional drive may be used, and Savinov teaches that the drive may be an electric drive).
Regarding claim 48, modified Savinov teaches the apparatus for non-radial cross-sectional reduction of a specimen of claim 42 (Figs. 1 and 3) wherein the exit tensioning device 22 is further comprised of a powered jaw 25 configured to grip the specimen and a frame to which the powered jaw is attached (Mills, Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 42-45; modified Savinov includes the entry and exit tensioning devices of Mills, which teaches the tensioning devices having a jaw and a frame to which the jaw is attached).
Regarding claim 49, modified Savinov teaches the apparatus for non-radial cross-sectional reduction of a specimen of claim 43 (Figs. 1 and 3) wherein the exit tensioning device 22 and the entry back tensioning device 22 are further comprised of a powered jaw 25 configured to grip the specimen and a frame to which the powered jaw is attached (Mills, Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 42-45; modified Savinov includes the entry and exit tensioning devices of Mills, which teaches the tensioning devices having a jaw coupled to a frame).
Regarding claim 51, modified Savinov teaches the apparatus for non-radial cross-sectional reduction of a specimen of claim 43 (Figs. 1 and 3) wherein the die driving mechanism is comprised of an actuator 3 from the group of actuators consisting of electrical, hydraulic, and pneumatic (Fig. 4; Col. 3, Lns. 8-11 and Col. 4, Lns. 31-39; any conventional drive may be used, and Savinov teaches that the drive may be an electric drive).
Regarding claim 52, modified Savinov teaches the apparatus for non-radial cross-sectional reduction of a specimen of claim 43 (Figs. 1 and 3) wherein the exit tensioning device 22 is further comprised of a powered jaw 25 configured to grip the specimen and a frame to which the powered jaw is attached (Mills, Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 42-45; modified Savinov includes the entry and exit tensioning devices of Mills, which teaches the tensioning devices having a jaw and a frame to which the jaw is attached).
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savinov in view of Busch in further view of Mills in further view of US 3,126,770 to Wuppermann.
Regarding claim 43, modified Savinov teaches the apparatus for non-radial cross-sectional reduction of a specimen of claim 41 (Figs. 1 and 3) further comprising the at least one driving mechanism comprised of an eccentric shaft 13 and connecting rod 9 (Figs. 1-4; Col. 5, Lns. 54-57) configured to provide a reciprocating transverse translational motion to at least one die segment and a synchronous reciprocating transverse translational motion to the plurality of die segments, whereby the at least one die gap opens and closes (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, Lns. 20-27 and 31-52; the driving mechanisms 8, 10 are connected to a common drive 3 such that each driving mechanism 8, 10 moves a die segment 2 and the die segments 2 are moved synchronously via the common drive 3);
wherein the reciprocating translational motion of the opposing die segments being less than or greater than the predetermined reduction (Figs. 1-4; it is noted that this claim is directed to an apparatus, and the apparatus is capable of providing the reciprocating translational motion that is less than the predetermined reduction because the predetermined reduction is dependent on the workpiece provided to the apparatus, i.e., the predetermined reduction may be very large).
Savinov fails to explicitly teach an exit tensioning device comprised of a clamping mechanism, a hydraulic cylinder for actuating the clamping mechanism and an actuator for moving the clamping mechanism; and, an entry back tensioning device comprised of a clamping mechanism, a hydraulic cylinder for actuating the clamping mechanism and an actuator for moving the clamping mechanism; wherein the exit tensioning device is configured to grip a specimen and the entry back tensioning device is configured to grip the specimen opposite to the exit tensioning device, the exit tensioning device and the entry back tensioning device further configured to maintain constant tension on the specimen, longitudinally translate the specimen through the at least one die gap, and the tension being insufficient to provide the translational motion to the specimen when the at least one die gap closes.
Mills teaches an apparatus for cross sectional reducing and straightening a specimen (Abstract; Fig. 1) including a plurality of die segments 12A-D (Fig. 3) and an exit tensioning device 22 comprising a clamping mechanism 25 (Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 33-52) and, an entry back tensioning device 22 comprising a clamping mechanism 25 (Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 33-52); wherein the exit tensioning device is configured to grip a specimen and the entry back tensioning device is configured to grip the specimen opposite to the exit tensioning device (Figs. 1 and 3), the exit tensioning device and the entry back tensioning device further configured to maintain constant tension on the specimen, cause the specimen to move with a translational motion through the at least one die gap (Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 33-52; the motor driven means 23 of the tensioning device make it configured to, i.e., capable of, maintain a continuous tension of the workpiece as it moves through the dies), and the tension being insufficient to provide the translational motion to the specimen during the compression phase (Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 33-52; it is noted that this is an apparatus claim, and therefore this element is interpreted as the exit tensioning device is capable of providing a continuous tension that is insufficient, which the tensioning device in Mills is capable of doing via the motor reducing the tension by the jaw).
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 apparatus of Savinov to include the powered jaws of Mills so that as the workpiece is being controlled and moved through the dies (Savinov, Col. 6, Lns. 20-21; “[t]he workpiece L being handled travels lengthwise said axis of forging”) the orientation and movement of the workpiece may be precisely controlled via the powered jaws of Mills handling the workpiece.
However, Mills is silent regarding the exit or entry tensioning device comprising a hydraulic cylinder for actuating the clamping mechanism and an actuator for moving the clamping mechanism because Mills does not specify the motor and drive means used in the tensioning devices (Col. 3, Lns. 33-42).
Wuppermann teaches an apparatus for handling workpieces during radial reduction operations (Col. 1, Lns. 12-19) including a tensioning device comprising a clamping mechanism 3, 4, a hydraulic cylinder 9, 10 for actuating the clamping mechanism (Figs. 1-1; Col. 2, Lns. 18-28 and Col. 3, Lns. 35-37) and an actuator 54, 55, 56 for moving the clamping mechanism (Figs. 1-2; Col. 3, Lns. 28-38).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute actuating mechanisms in the tensioning device of modified Savinov with the actuating mechanisms of Wuppermann as those components and their functions were well known in the art and a person of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted each of these known elements for another with the predictable result of powering the tensioning device to grip and maintain tension on the workpiece.
Claims 50 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savinov in view of Busch in further view of Mills in further view of US 3,750,436 to Harrison.
Regarding claim 50, modified Savinov teaches the apparatus for non-radial cross-sectional reduction of a specimen of claim 48 (Figs. 1 and 3) wherein the powered jaw 22 is attached to the frame by a gear reducer powered by a drive 23 (Mills, Fig. 1, Col. 3, Lns. 33-42; modified Savinov includes the tensioning devices of Mills, which include a motor and drive means, i.e., a gear reducer, that attach the jaws to the frame).
However, Mills is silent regarding the drive device being from the group consisting of a hydraulic motor, a pneumatic motor, and an electric motor because Mills does not specify the motor and drive means used in the tensioning devices (Col. 3, Lns. 33-42).
Harrison teaches an apparatus for cross sectional reducing of a specimen (Abstract, Fig. 1) including a tensioning device 13 attached to the frame by a gear reducer 38 powered by a hydraulic motor 37 (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Lns. 6-18).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute motor in the tensioning device of modified Savinov with the hydraulic motor of Harrison as those components and their functions were well known in the art and a person of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted each of these known elements for another with the predictable result of powering the tensioning device to grip and maintain tension on the workpiece.
Regarding claim 53, modified Savinov teaches the apparatus for non-radial cross-sectional reduction of a specimen of claim 48 (Figs. 1 and 3) wherein the powered jaw 22 is attached to the frame by a gear reducer powered by a drive 23 (Mills, Fig. 1, Col. 3, Lns. 33-42; modified Savinov includes the tensioning devices of Mills, which include a motor and drive means, i.e., a gear reducer, that attach the jaws to the frame).
However, Mills is silent regarding the drive device being from the group consisting of a hydraulic motor, a pneumatic motor, and an electric motor because Mills does not specify the motor and drive means used in the tensioning devices (Col. 3, Lns. 33-42).
Harrison teaches an apparatus for cross sectional reducing of a specimen (Abstract, Fig. 1) including a tensioning device 13 attached to the frame by a gear reducer 38 powered by a hydraulic motor 37 (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Lns. 6-18).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute motor in the tensioning device of modified Savinov with the hydraulic motor of Harrison as those components and their functions were well known in the art and a person of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted each of these known elements for another with the predictable result of powering the tensioning device to grip and maintain tension on the workpiece.
Claims 54, 57-60, and 62-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savinov in view of Mills in further view of Wuppermann.
Regarding claim 54, Savinov teaches an apparatus for cross sectional reducing and stretch straightening a specimen (Abstract) comprising:
a plurality of die segments 2 wherein each die segment has a contact face (Figs. 1-4, Col. 4, Lns. 13-39);
at least one of the die segments 2 wherein the contact face has at least two planar surfaces that intersect to form a convex feature configured to provide a convex cross sectional reduction to the specimen transverse to the longitudinal motion of the specimen (Fig. 4 shows that the side profile of the contact surface of the die segment includes two planar surfaces that intersect to form a convex feature, which is capable of providing a convex cross sectional reduction to a specimen, and it is noted that the claim limitation is directed to at least one of the die segments having these features being capable of forming a convex reduction to the specimen which the die in Savinov is capable of doing when acting alone, i.e., if the other dies were not also impacting the other portions of the workpiece any die alone is capable of reducing the workpiece such that a convex feature like the rounded inclined portion shown in Fig. 4 is formed while the rest of the specimen is unchanged);
the plurality of die segments 2 configured such that the contact face of each die segment is opposed by the contact face of at least one other die segment 2 to form at least one set of opposing die segments (Fig. 3);
at least one die gap determined by the distance between the contact faces of the at least one set of opposing die segments 2 (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, Lns. 31-52; each of the die segments 2 move towards and away from the workpiece to define a gap between the faces of the opposing die segments);
at least one die driving mechanism comprised of an eccentric shaft 13 and connecting rod 9 configured to translate at least one die segment 2 in a transverse translational motion toward the opposing die segment (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, Lns. 40-64);
the at least one die driving mechanism 8, 10 configured to provide a reciprocating transverse translational motion to at least one die segment and a synchronous reciprocating transverse translational motion to the plurality of die segments, whereby the at least one die gap opens and closes (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, Lns. 20-27 and 31-52; the driving mechanisms 8, 10 are connected to a common drive 3 such that each driving mechanism 8, 10 moves a die segment 2 and the die segments 2 are moved synchronously via the common drive 3),
wherein the reciprocating transverse transitional motion of the opposing die segments being less than the predetermined reduction (Figs. 1-4; it is noted that this claim is directed to an apparatus, and the apparatus is capable of providing the reciprocating translational motion that is less than the predetermined reduction because the predetermined reduction is dependent on the workpiece provided to the apparatus, i.e., the predetermined reduction may be very large).
Savinov fails to explicitly teach an exit tensioning device comprised of a clamping mechanism, a hydraulic cylinder for actuating the clamping mechanism, and an actuator for moving the clamping mechanism; wherein the exit tensioning device is configured to grip a specimen and maintain a continuous tension on the specimen causing the specimen to move with a longitudinal translational motion through the at least one die gap and cross sectionally reducing the specimen by a predetermined reduction, the continuous tension being insufficient to provide the longitudinal translational motion to the specimen when the at least one die gap closes.
Mills teaches an apparatus for cross sectional reducing and straightening a specimen (Abstract; Fig. 1) including a plurality of die segments 12A-D (Fig. 3) and an exit tensioning device 22 including a clamping mechanism 25 (Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 33-52); wherein the exit tensioning device 22 is configured to grip a specimen and maintain a continuous tension on the specimen causing the specimen to move with a translational motion through the at least one die gap and cross sectionally reducing the specimen by a predetermined reduction (Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 33-52; the motor driven means 23 of the tensioning device make it configured to, i.e., capable of, maintain a continuous tension of the workpiece as it moves through the dies), the continuous tension being insufficient to provide the translational motion to the specimen during the compression phase (Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 33-52; it is noted that this is an apparatus claim, and therefore this element is interpreted as the exit tensioning device is capable of providing a continuous tension that is insufficient, which the tensioning device in Mills is capable of doing via the motor reducing the tension by the jaw).
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 apparatus of Savinov to include the powered jaw of Mills so that as the workpiece is being controlled and moved through the dies (Savinov, Col. 6, Lns. 20-21; “[t]he workpiece L being handled travels lengthwise said axis of forging”) the orientation and movement of the workpiece may be precisely controlled via the powered jaws of Mills handling the workpiece.
However, Mills is silent regarding the exit tensioning device comprising a hydraulic cylinder for actuating the clamping mechanism and an actuator for moving the clamping mechanism because Mills does not specify the motor and drive means used in the tensioning devices (Col. 3, Lns. 33-42).
Wuppermann teaches an apparatus for handling workpieces during radial reduction operations (Col. 1, Lns. 12-19) including a tensioning device comprising a clamping mechanism 3, 4, a hydraulic cylinder 9, 10 for actuating the clamping mechanism (Figs. 1-1; Col. 2, Lns. 18-28 and Col. 3, Lns. 35-37) and an actuator 54, 55, 56 for moving the clamping mechanism (Figs. 1-2; Col. 3, Lns. 28-38).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute actuating mechanisms in the tensioning device of modified Savinov with the actuating mechanisms of Wuppermann as those components and their functions were well known in the art and a person of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted each of these known elements for another with the predictable result of powering the tensioning device to grip and maintain tension on the workpiece.
Regarding claim 57, modified Savinov teaches the apparatus of claim 54 (Figs. 1 and 3) wherein the die driving mechanism is comprised of an actuator 3 from the group of actuators consisting of electrical, hydraulic, and pneumatic (Fig. 4; Col. 3, Lns. 8-11 and Col. 4, Lns. 31-39; Savinov teaches that the drive may be an electric drive).
Regarding claim 58, modified Savinov teaches the apparatus of claim 54 (Figs. 1 and 3) wherein the exit tensioning device 22 is further comprised of a powered jaw 25 configured to grip the specimen and a frame to which the powered jaw is attached (Mills, Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 42-45; modified Savinov includes the exit tensioning devices of Mills, which teaches the tensioning devices having a jaw and a frame to which the jaw is attached).
Regarding claim 59, modified Savinov teaches the apparatus of claim 58 (Figs. 1 and 3) wherein the powered jaw 22 is attached to the frame by a gear reducer powered by a device from the group consisting of a hydraulic motor, a pneumatic motor and an electric motor (Wuppermann, Figs. 1-2, Col. 3, Lns. 22-38; modified Savinov includes the actuating mechanisms of Wuppermann for the tensioning device, which include a gear reducer, i.e., rack and pinion, attached to the frame and powered by hydraulic motors).
Regarding claim 60, Savinov teaches an apparatus for cross sectional reducing and stretch straightening a specimen (Abstract) comprising:
a plurality of die segments 2 wherein each die segment has a contact face (Figs. 1-4, Col. 4, Lns. 13-39);
at least one of the die segments 2 wherein the contact face has at least two planar surfaces that intersect to form a cross-sectional convex feature configured to provide a negative convex feature on the specimen transverse to the longitudinal motion of the specimen (Fig. 4 shows that the side profile of the contact surface of the die segment includes two planar surfaces that intersect to form a convex feature, which is capable of providing a negative convex feature on a specimen, and it is noted that the claim limitation is directed to at least one of the die segments having these features being capable of forming a negative concave feature which the die in Savinov is capable of doing when acting alone, i.e., if the other dies were not also impacting the other portions of the rod any die alone is capable of reducing the workpiece such that a negative concave feature is formed transverse to the longitudinal motion of the specimen);
the plurality of die segments 2 configured such that the contact face of each die segment is opposed by the contact face of at least one other die segment 2 to form at least one set of opposing die segments 2 (Figs. 1 and 3);
at least one die gap determined by the distance between the contact faces of the at least one set of opposing die segments 2 (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, Lns. 31-52; each of the die segments 2 move towards and away from the workpiece to define a gap between the faces of the opposing die segments);
at least one die driving mechanism comprised of an eccentric shaft 13 and connecting rod 9 configured to translate at least one die segment 2 in a transverse translational motion toward the opposing die segment (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, Lns. 40-64);
the at least one die driving mechanism 8, 10 configured to provide a reciprocating transverse translational motion to at least one die segment and a synchronous reciprocating transverse translational motion to the plurality of die segments, whereby the at least one die gap opens and closes (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, Lns. 20-27 and 31-52; the driving mechanisms 8, 10 are connected to a common drive 3 such that each driving mechanism 8, 10 moves a die segment 2 and the die segments 2 are moved synchronously via the common drive 3);
wherein the die segments cross sectionally reduce the specimen by a predetermined reduction, the reciprocating transverse translational motion of the opposing die segments being less than or greater than the predetermined reduction (Figs. 1-4; it is noted that this claim is directed to an apparatus, and the apparatus is capable of providing the reciprocating translational motion that is less than the predetermined reduction because the predetermined reduction is dependent on the workpiece provided to the apparatus, i.e., the predetermined reduction may be very large).
Savinov fails to explicitly teach an exit tensioning device comprised of a clamping mechanism, a hydraulic cylinder for actuating the clamping mechanism and an actuator for moving the clamping mechanism; and, an entry back tensioning device comprised of a clamping mechanism, a hydraulic cylinder for actuating the clamping mechanism and an actuator for moving the clamping mechanism; wherein the exit tensioning device is configured to grip a specimen and the entry back tensioning device is configured to grip the specimen opposite to the exit tensioning device, the exit tensioning device and the entry back tensioning device further configured to maintain constant tension on the specimen, cause the specimen to move with a longitudinal translational motion through the at least one die gap, and the tension being insufficient to provide the translational motion to the specimen when the at least one die gap closes.
Mills teaches an apparatus for cross sectional reducing and straightening a specimen (Abstract; Fig. 1) including a plurality of die segments 12A-D (Fig. 3) and an exit tensioning device 22 comprising a clamping mechanism 25 (Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 33-52) and, an entry back tensioning device 22 comprising a clamping mechanism (Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 33-52); wherein the exit tensioning device is configured to grip a specimen and the entry back tensioning device is configured to grip the specimen opposite to the exit tensioning device (Figs. 1 and 3), the exit tensioning device and the entry back tensioning device further configured to maintain constant tension on the specimen, cause the specimen to move with a longitudinal translational motion through the at least one die gap (Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 33-52; the motor driven means 23 of the tensioning device make it configured to, i.e., capable of, maintain a continuous tension of the workpiece as it moves through the dies), and the tension being insufficient to provide the translational motion to the specimen during the compression phase (Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 33-52; it is noted that this is an apparatus claim, and therefore this element is interpreted as the exit tensioning device is capable of providing a continuous tension that is insufficient, which the tensioning device in Mills is capable of doing via the motor reducing the tension by the jaw).
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 apparatus of Savinov to include the powered jaws of Mills so that as the workpiece is being controlled and moved through the dies (Savinov, Col. 6, Lns. 20-21; “[t]he workpiece L being handled travels lengthwise said axis of forging”) the orientation and movement of the workpiece may be precisely controlled via the powered jaws of Mills handling the workpiece.
However, Mills is silent regarding the exit or entry tensioning device comprising a hydraulic cylinder for actuating the clamping mechanism and an actuator for moving the clamping mechanism because Mills does not specify the motor and drive means used in the tensioning devices (Col. 3, Lns. 33-42).
Wuppermann teaches an apparatus for handling workpieces during radial reduction operations (Col. 1, Lns. 12-19) including a tensioning device comprising a clamping mechanism 3, 4, a hydraulic cylinder 9, 10 for actuating the clamping mechanism (Figs. 1-1; Col. 2, Lns. 18-28 and Col. 3, Lns. 35-37) and an actuator 54, 55, 56 for moving the clamping mechanism (Figs. 1-2; Col. 3, Lns. 28-38).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute actuating mechanisms in the tensioning device of modified Savinov with the actuating mechanisms of Wuppermann as those components and their functions were well known in the art and a person of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted each of these known elements for another with the predictable result of powering the tensioning device to grip and maintain tension on the workpiece.
Regarding claim 62, modified Savinov teaches the apparatus of claim 60 (Figs. 1-3) wherein the die driving mechanism 8, 10 is comprised of a powered, rotating eccentric shaft 13 attached to the die segment 2 through a connecting linkage 7, 8, 9, 10 (Figs. 1-4; Col. 5, Lns. 54-57).
Regarding claim 63, modified Savinov teaches the apparatus of claim 60 (Figs. 1 and 3) wherein the die driving mechanism is comprised of an actuator 3 from the group of actuators consisting of electrical, hydraulic, and pneumatic (Fig. 4; Col. 3, Lns. 8-11 and Col. 4, Lns. 31-39; Savinov teaches that the drive may be an electric drive).
Regarding claim 64, modified Savinov teaches the apparatus of claim 60 (Figs. 1 and 3) wherein the exit tensioning device 22 and the entry back tensioning device are further comprised of a powered jaw 25 configured to grip the specimen (Mills, Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 42-45; modified Savinov includes the entry and exit tensioning devices of Mills, which teaches the tensioning devices having a powered jaw) and a frame to which the powered jaw is attached (Mills, Fig. 1; modified Savinov includes the tensioning device of Mills, and as shown In Fig. 1 the tensioning device 22 is on a frame).
Regarding claim 65, modified Savinov teaches the apparatus of claim 64 (Figs. 1 and 3) wherein the powered jaw 22 is attached to the frame by a gear reducer powered by a device from the group consisting of a hydraulic motor, a pneumatic motor and an electric motor (Wuppermann, Figs. 1-2, Col. 3, Lns. 22-38; modified Savinov includes the actuating mechanisms of Wuppermann for the tensioning device, which include a gear reducer, i.e., rack and pinion, attached to the frame and powered by hydraulic motors).
Claim 55-56 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savinov in view of Mills in further view of Wuppermann in further view of Busch.
Regarding claim 55, modified Savinov teaches the apparatus of claim 54 (Figs. 1 and 3) further comprising a plurality of die constraining mechanisms 5 configured such that the transverse translational motion of the plurality of die segments is perpendicular to the longitudinal translational motion of the specimen (Figs. 1-3; Col. 4, Lns. 40-52 and Col. 5, Lns. 3-15),
wherein the plurality of die constraining mechanisms 5 is comprised of a plurality of sliding journals configured to guide and constrain to one axis, the motion of the die segments (Figs. 1-3; Col. 4, Lns. 40-52 and Col. 5, Lns. 3-15; the frames 17 constrain the sliding journals to one axis).
Modified Savinov fails to explicitly teach the plurality of die constraining mechanisms are configured such that the axis of motion of the plurality of die segments is not constrained to converge on a radial center.
Busch teaches an apparatus for cross sectional reducing and straightening a specimen (Abstract) including a plurality of die segments 3 (Figs. 2-3) and the plurality of die segments configured such that the axis of motion of the plurality of die segments is not constrained to converge on a radial center (Figs. 2-4; Paras [0028]-[0029]; the position of the die segments 3 may be adjusted via a gear 5 and spindle 6 such that the path of movement, i.e., the axis of motion, of each die segment may be adjusted to a different plane so that the die segment moves towards a different area in the radial center, i.e., the die segments may be adjusted so that each of their paths of movement converges to a different location in the center).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus for straightening of Savinov to include the die segment adjusting mechanism of Busch so that adjustments to the position and path of movement of the die segments may be performed without having to change the tools or other components of the apparatus (Busch, Para. [0026]).
Regarding claim 56, modified Savinov teaches the apparatus of claim 55 (Figs. 1-3) wherein the die driving mechanism 8, 10 is comprised of a powered, rotating eccentric shaft 13 attached to the die segment 2 through a connecting linkage 7, 8, 9, 10 (Figs. 1-4; Col. 5, Lns. 54-57).
Regarding claim 61, modified Savinov teaches the apparatus of claim 60 (Figs. 1 and 3) further comprising a plurality of die constraining mechanisms 5 configured such that the transverse translational motion of the plurality of die segments is perpendicular to the longitudinal translational motion of the specimen (Figs. 1-3; Col. 4, Lns. 40-52 and Col. 5, Lns. 3-15),
wherein the plurality of die constraining mechanisms 5 is comprised of a plurality of sliding journals configured to guide and constrain to one axis, the motion of the die segments (Figs. 1-3; Col. 4, Lns. 40-52 and Col. 5, Lns. 3-15; the frames 17 constrain the sliding journals to one axis).
Modified Savinov fails to explicitly teach the plurality of die constraining mechanisms are configured such that the axis of motion of the plurality of die segments is not constrained to converge on a radial center.
Busch teaches an apparatus for cross sectional reducing and straightening a specimen (Abstract) including a plurality of die segments 3 (Figs. 2-3) and the plurality of die segments configured such that the axis of motion of the plurality of die segments is not constrained to converge on a radial center (Figs. 2-4; Paras [0028]-[0029]; the position of the die segments 3 may be adjusted via a gear 5 and spindle 6 such that the path of movement, i.e., the axis of motion, of each die segment may be adjusted to a different plane so that the die segment moves towards a different area in the radial center, i.e., the die segments may be adjusted so that each of their paths of movement converges to a different location in the center).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus for straightening of Savinov to include the die segment adjusting mechanism of Busch so that adjustments to the position and path of movement of the die segments may be performed without having to change the tools or other components of the apparatus (Busch, Para. [0026]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments dated May 16, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 112 and the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 112 and objections have been withdrawn. It is noted that the claim amendments introduced new 35 USC 112 rejections and claim objections as discussed above.
Applicant's arguments and remarks with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim interpretation case law and guidance provided in MPEP 2114 does not apply to their apparatus because the functional language related to 112(f) claim interpretation has been removed from the claim language. Remarks, P. 1. This argument has been carefully considered and it is not persuasive. Applicant has conflated claim interpretation under 112(f) for means-plus-function claim features (discussed in MPEP 2181) with claim interpretation of claim features in an apparatus claim that refer to the function being performed by the apparatus, which is discussed in MPEP 2114. Applicant’s decision to amend the claims such that claim features are no longer interpreted under 112(f) has no impact on the applicability of MPEP 2114. Accordingly, the rejection will continue to rely upon the claim interpretation guidance provided by MPEP 2114 and Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc.
Applicant argues that the references alone or in combination fails to teach the dies not converging radially because the figures in Busch show “the dies segments can be translated, [but] the dies continue to converge radially on the specimen and will reduce the specimen radially.” Remarks, PP. 2-5. Applicant also points to the language in Busch regarding the apparatus performing radial forging as further evidence that the dies converge radially. Id. This argument has been carefully considered and it is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claim language. The claim language is “the plurality of die constraining mechanisms are configured such that the axis of motion of the plurality of die segments is not constrained to converge on a radial center” (claims 41, 55, and 61). The mechanism to translate the die segments in Busch allow for each of the die segments to not “converge on a radial center,” as recited in the claims.
Applicant further argues that Savinov fails to teach a “transverse reduction of the specimen” as required by the claims (Remarks, P. 5) which is not persuasive because Fig. 4 of Savinov clearly shows the specimen being reduced in a transverse manner.
Finally, Applicant has provided a chart regarding the differences in structure between the prior art apparatuses and “the current invention structure” (Remarks, PP. 6-7), however the chart does not refer to any of the claim limitations. The chart provides rows related to functions or components with the corresponding feature in the prior art or the Applicant’s invention, but the relevant analysis is for the claimed invention versus the prior art. Accordingly, the differences highlighted in the chart are not persuasive as they are not tied to claim language.
Response to Amendment
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed June 19, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 based upon the combination of Savinov and Busch as set forth in the last Office action because:
Dr. Ramasundaram asserts that in Savinov “the rotation of the housing…creates an incompatibility with a concave feature of a workpiece due to loss of alignment with the concave feature” (Paragraph 4a) because the rotation would impact and buckle any raised feature. Further, “[t]his rotating means of engagement only makes sense for a featureless specimen without concave and convex features.” This argument is not persuasive because the claim language only requires one of the die segments to be capable of making such a concave or convex feature, and there is not requirement for the size or width of such a feature, i.e., a small reduction would cause a concave or convex feature which would not be impacted by the rotation of the dies. Further, as clearly shown in Savinov, the dies are able to function to reduce the specimen even though they have rotated.
Also in paragraph 4a, Dr. Ramasundaram acknowledges the convex features of the die segment, but appears to assert that these are somehow different than the claimed die features. While the discussion in this paragraph shifts to the final product produced in Savinov, ultimately the convex die features of Savinov are not disputed but rather described as “a mislabeling of a common die feature.” Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
With respect to Busch, Dr. Ramasundaram focuses on the manner in which Busch functions to translate the axis of movement of the dies to continue forging on a specimen positioned in the radial center (Paragraph 4b). While the summary of the manner in which Busch describes forging appears to be accurate, this discussion fails to refute that the features in Busch are capable of adjusting the dies such that the plurality of die constraining mechanisms are configured such that the axis of motion of the plurality of die segments is not constrained to converge on a radial center. The claim requires the system to be capable of adjusting the constraining mechanisms such that the axis of motion of the die segments is not constrained, which Busch is capable of doing even if the failure conditions noted by Dr. Ramasundaram are true. This argument would be persuasive for a method claim in which the dies are moving in such a manner that they may fail as described, but the system claim needs only be capable of being adjusted in such a manner. Accordingly, this assertion is not persuasive as to why the combination of Savinon and Busch would fail.
With respect to the discussion regarding Mills and the claimed exit and entry tensioning devices, Dr. Ramasundaram has provided a general discussion of Mills without focusing on the claim features directed to the tensioning devices. It is noted that some of the rejections regarding the tensioning devices have been modified to include features of Wuppermann related to the actuation of the clamping mechanisms and the movement of the tensioning devices. The discussion of the tensioning devices in the affidavit fails to address any of these newly added features to the claims or explain why the combination of Mills and Wuppermann (which includes all of the components of the tensioning devices recited in the claims) would be deficient to perform the functions discussed. Accordingly, this discussion is not persuasive as it does not address the newly added claim features or the new prior art that teaches these features.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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, Chris 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.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights