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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 16, 2025, has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 54 and 60 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims are new but include underlined words (e.g., “a” and “translational”) which is used for denoting claim amendments to existing claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Also, claims 57 and 63 appear to recite the same limitation as they both depend from claim 54. Claim 63 appears as if it should depend from claim 60. These two claims should be amended to differentiate the claimed subject matter of the claims, e.g., amending claim 63 to depend from claim 60.
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Claims 21-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected process, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one die driving mechanism” in claims 43, 54, and 60; “exit tensioning device” in claims 43, 54, and 60; and “entry tensioning device” in claims 43 and 60.
With respect to the die driving mechanism, this phrase includes a generic placeholder (“at least one die driving mechanism”) and a function (provide or translate “a transverse translational motion”) without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as the eccentric shaft 44 and connecting rod 46 (Figs. 2-3 and Para. [0053]) and equivalents thereof.
The entry and exit tensioning device claim limitations each recite a generic placeholder (“entry tensioning device” or “exit tensioning device”) and a function (“grip a specimen” and “maintain a constant tension on the specimen”) without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as the tensioning devices shown in Figs. 24-27 which include a clamping mechanism 142, a hydraulic cylinder 140 for actuating the clamping mechanism and an actuator 146 for moving the clamping mechanism (Figs. 24-27 and Paras. [0067]-[0068]) and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 55 and 61 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.
Regarding claims 55 and 61, each of these claims recites “the plurality of die constraining mechanisms is comprised of a plurality of sliding journals configured to guide and constrain the motion of the die segments to one axis, and the plurality of mechanisms is not constrained to converge on a radial center” (the language of claim 61 is slightly different but similar enough that it is indefinite for the same reason) which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if all of the die segments are constrained to one axis by the plurality of sliding journals and also it is not clear if each of the plurality of die constraining mechanisms is comprised of a plurality of sliding journals. Further, it is not clear if the plurality of sliding journals are configured so that the axis of motion of the plurality of die segments is not constrained to converge on a radial center or if the last phrase is describing an aspect of the system not necessarily related to the sliding journals. For the purposes of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as each of the plurality of die constraining mechanisms is comprised of a sliding journal configured to guide and constrain the motion of the die segments to one axis, and 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. Claim 56 depends from claim 55 and fails to clarify the indefinite language.
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 (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);
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).
Modified 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 42-43, 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 43, modified Savinov teaches the apparatus for non-radial cross-sectional reduction of a specimen of claim 41 (Figs. 1 and 3) further comprising 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; and, an entry back tensioning device; 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 (Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 33-52) and, an entry back tensioning device 22 (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.
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 50 and 53 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 3,750,436 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, 57-58, 60, and 62-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savinov in view of Mills.
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 (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);
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 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; 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 (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 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 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 (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);
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 8, 10 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; and, an entry back tensioning device; 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 (Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 33-52) and, an entry back tensioning device 22 (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.
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 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 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).
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 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 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 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]).
Claim 59 and 65 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savinov in view of Mills in further view of Harrison.
Regarding claim 59, modified Savinov teaches the apparatus of claim 54 (Figs. 1 and 3) wherein the powered jaw 22 is attached to the frame by a gear reducer powered by a motor and drive means 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 motor and drive means 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 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 motor and drive means 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 motor and drive means 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments dated May 16, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 112, the claim objections and the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 29-31, 33, 36-38 and 44 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. It is noted that the claim amendments introduced new 35 USC 112 rejections and claim objections related to the newly added claims.
Applicant's arguments and remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 41-43 and 46-50 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 rejection relies upon more than a single reference. Remarks, PP. 11-12. This argument has been carefully considered and it is not persuasive. While the rejection in Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) may differ from the rejection in the present application because Hewlett-Packard Co. relied on a single reference, the guidance provided in that case and in MPEP 2114 regarding interpreting claim language for apparatus claims is still applicable for the purposes of claim interpretation. Applicant appears to be making the argument that claim interpretation for apparatus claims should be different for anticipation and obviousness rejections, but this argument is not supported by any case law or any passages of the MPEP. Applicant has focused on the quoted passages which refer to “a prior art apparatus” while ignoring that the entire passage is directed to (and relied upon in the present rejection for) the interpretation of apparatus claims which include functional language. 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 also argues that the cited prior art references do not teach die segments having contact faces having at least two planar surfaces that intersect to form a cross-section convex features “configured to provide a negative concave feature on the specimen” because the convex feature of Savinov would be prevented from impacting the workpiece enough to reduce it due to the rotational motion of the system and further “a single dent would not product a convex reduction along the longitudinal length of a work piece.” Remarks, P. 13. Applicant further argues that Savinov is incapable of incorporating a convex cross sectional feature because the oscillating rotation of the apparatus can only be concave “as a convex feature would cause damage to the workpiece.” Id. at 13-14. This argument has been carefully considered and it is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claim language and it relies upon attorney argument regarding the capabilities of the prior art. Applicant states that “Savinov cannot make a convex reduction to work piece” which is not recited in the claims, and claim 41 actually recites the die segments have at least two planar surfaces “that intersect to form a cross-sectional convex feature configured to provide a negative concave feature on the specimen,” i.e. the reduction is a negative on concave feature in the claims and not a convex reduction. Further, as discussed in t