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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 22 October 2025 has been entered.
New claim objections have been provided in the current Office action.
New 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been provided in the current Office action.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 22 October 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 13 are not persuasive. After conducting an updated search, a reference was identified, which teaches the amended portion of the claim 13. Therefore, claim 13 remains rejected as obvious in view of the prior art.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are allowed.
New prior art rejections have been provided for claims 10-12, which are not due to the Applicant’s amendments. Therefore, the current Office action is in a non-final status.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 22 October 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1, 7, 12-13, and 21 have been amended. Claims 8 and 15 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-21 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119 as follows: fig. 7 of the Instant Application is not present in the priority Foreign Priority Document (EP3753668A1); however, fig. 7 is present in the Domestic Priority Document (WO2020254680A1). With respect to the claims, claims 3 and 21 were added based on limitations that were added to the Domestic Priority Document but are not present in the Foreign Priority Document. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 5-17, and 19-20 have the benefit of the earlier filing date from the Foreign Priority Document (20 June 2019), but claims 3 and 21 have the benefit of the filing date from the Domestic Priority Document (22 June 2020).
Claim Objections
Claims 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 12, recommend reciting: “withthe indexer of the welding tool”
In claim 13, recommend placing a comma between “housing” and “the” in line 4, i.e., “..valve housing, the valve housing…”
In claim 13, recommend placing a semicolon after “position” (line 14).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 such as the holding means and rotation means of claim 13 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.
Claims 17 and 20 have sufficient structure such that the “rotation means” is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). Claims 14-17 and 20-21 have sufficient structure such that the “holding means” is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “…by means of…” in claims 7 and 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 7, 9, 14, 16-17, and 20-21 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.
Claim 7 recites “an expandable mandrel.” However, claim 7 is dependent on claim 1, which recites “an arm with an indexer.” The Specification discloses that the expandable mandrel is an alternative embodiment to the arm with the indexer (pages 8-10). Therefore, it is unclear how the claimed invention can include both the expandable mandrel and the arm with an indexer, when the Specification discloses these elements as alternative embodiments for holding the ball element within the valve housing.
Claim 14 recites “an expandable mandrel.” However, claim 14 is dependent on claim 13, which recites “one or more gas ducts.” The Specification discloses that indexer that is located on the arm includes the “at least one gas duct” (page 13). However, the Specification discloses that the expandable mandrel is an alternative embodiment to the arm with the indexer (pages 8-10). Therefore, it is unclear how the claimed invention can include both the expandable mandrel and the arm with an indexer, when the Specification discloses these elements as alternative embodiments for holding the ball element within the valve housing.
Claims 9, 16-17, and 20-21 are rejected based on their dependence to claims 7 and 14. This new rejection has been added based on the amended portions of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gachot (US-4235003-A).
Regarding claim 10, Gachot teaches a ball valve (“Ball Valve,” title) for regulating the fluid (“for connecting the valve to a piping system,” claim 1; construed such that the manufactured ball valve is able to regulate fluid in a piping system) at the central part of the valve (the ball 15 is located at the flared-out portions 3 and 4, fig. 1), produced using the method according to claim 1 (patentability of product is based on the product itself and not on its method of production, MPEP 2113; there is no difference between the finished product of claim 1 and the ball valve that is manufactured by Gachot; therefore, “produced using the method according to claim 1” is not being given any patentable weight by the examiner).
Gachot, figs. 1-4
PNG
media_image1.png
208
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
190
330
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
296
338
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
288
392
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Gachot teaches wherein the ball (ball 15, fig. 3) further includes an indexer aperture (slot 22, fig. 3), where said indexer aperture in the ball is adapted in size, shape and/or position to engage with an indexer (end 21, fig. 3) of the welding tool (“welding machine,” column 4, line 42, operating rod 19, fig. 3, and mandrel 43, fig. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gachot (US-4235003-A) as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Eklof (US-20040117986-A1).
Regarding claim 11, Gachot teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the ball valve is a floating ball valve or a trunnion ball valve.
However, in the same field of endeavor of manufacturing ball valves, Eklof teaches wherein the ball valve is a floating ball valve (not explicitly disclosed) or a trunnion ball valve (ball 2 is attached to spindle 14 and handle 15, fig. 6; construed as a trunnion ball valve).
Eklof, fig. 7
PNG
media_image5.png
627
805
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Gachot to include, wherein the ball valve is a floating ball valve or a trunnion ball valve, in view of the teachings of Eklof, by adding a spindle and a handle, as taught by Eklof, to the ball 15 inside the semicircular notches 11, as taught by Gachot, in order to use a handle to rotate the valve ball for opening and closing the valve (Eklof, para 0016).
Claims 13-14, 17, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gachot (US-4235003-A) in view of Eklof (US-20040117986-A1) and Grausgruber et al. (US-20160228993-A1).
Regarding claim 13, Gachot teaches a welding tool (“welding machine,” column 4, line 42, operating rod 19, fig. 3, and mandrel 43, fig. 4) for holding and handling valve housing parts and a ball (shells 1 and 2 and ball 15, fig. 4) during welding (column 4, lines 46-55), said welding tool comprises:
holding means (operating rod 19, fig. 4; construed as an arm) configured to hold the ball in a position (rod 19 holds ball 15, fig. 4) inside a central part (flared out portions 3 and 4, fig. 1) of a valve housing (housing of the valve, fig. 2) the valve housing including first and second valve housing parts (shells 1 and 2, fig. 1), and rotation means (mandrel 43, fig. 4 and stuffing box 23, fig. 3; the jaws 42 are construed as a turret and mandrel 43 is construed as a bearing) configured and arranged to perform an interrelated rotation (“rotation of the mandrel 43,” column 4, line 47) about an axial rotation axis (central axis of the mandrel 43, fig. 4) between a position of the first and second valve housing parts (weld fillet 17 is between shells 1 and 2, figs. 1-2) and the position of the ball (ball 15, fig. 4) and a welding laser or welding torch (a laser or torch is not explicitly disclosed; “welding machine (not shown in the drawings) which is intended to make a spot weld between the chamfers 9,” column 4, lines 42-44; the weld fillet 17 is applied at chamfers 9, fig. 4; the chamfers 9 are construed as being between the welding machine and the ball 15, fig. 4), wherein the interrelated rotation is performed by:
rotating the first and second housing parts (“rotation of the mandrel 43 so as to displace the edges 5,” column 4, lines 47-48; the edges 5 are part of the shells 1 and 2, fig. 1) relative to a fixed position (central axis of mandrel 43 through the operating rod 19, fig. 4), while the ball (“the ball is applied against the seat 14 of the sleeve 12 and maintained stationary by means of the operating rod 19,” column 4, lines 51-53) and the welding laser or welding torch remain stationary (“a welding machine (not shown in the drawings) which is intended to make a spot weld between the chamfers 9 opposite to the opening of the passageway 41, that is to say in the place of FIG. 4,” column 4, lines 42-45; construed such that the welding machine remains stationary relative to the chamfers 9, fig. 4) with respect to the fixed position (axis along rod 19, fig. 4), and/or rotating the ball and the welding laser or welding torch relative to a fixed position, while the first and second housing parts remain stationary with respect to the fixed position (not explicitly disclosed).
Gachot does not explicitly disclose a welding laser or welding torch (although Gachot teaches a “welding machine,” Gachot does not explicitly disclose what type of welding machine is used), wherein the welding tool further includes one or more gas ducts configured and arranged for introduction and/or withdrawal of a protective gas into an inner space of the valve housing.
However, in the same field of endeavor of manufacturing ball valves, Eklof teaches a welding laser (“laser…welding,” para 0016; source of radiation 30, fig. 7) or welding torch (not explicitly disclosed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Gachot to include, a welding laser or welding torch, in view of the teachings of Eklof, by using a welding laser, as taught by Eklof, as the welding machine, as taught by Gachot, in order to use a laser beam to weld the ball valve, which advantageously provides fast welding performance, substantially low heat, and low risk of spatters (Eklof, paras 0006 and 0011-0014).
Gachot/ Eklof do not explicitly disclose wherein the welding tool further includes one or more gas ducts configured and arranged for introduction and/or withdrawal of a protective gas into an inner space of the valve housing.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of uniform heating of weld seams, Grausgruber teaches wherein the welding tool (housing parts 14 and 15, fig. 1) further includes one or more gas ducts (“suction passage,” para 0048; connected to outlet 18, fig. 3) configured and arranged for introduction (through inlet 17, fig. 3) and/or withdrawal (through outlet 18, fig. 3) of a protective gas (“purging medium (e.g. inert gas),” para 0095) into an inner space of the valve housing (space around the workpiece 3, fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Gachot, in view of the teachings of Grausgruber, by using the housing parts 14 and 15, as taught by Grausgruber, around the shells 1 and 2 when the shells are connected to the mandrel 43, as taught by Gachot, in order to use housing parts that feed a purging medium to the weld seam, for the advantage of using housing parts that provide an economical way of feeding a purging medium into the working area and that provide an energy-efficient way of preventing heat from being lost to the outside (Grausgruber, para 0021).
Regarding claim 14, Gachot teaches wherein the holding means (operating rod 19, fig. 4) includes:
an expandable mandrel which is configured and arranged to hold the ball when inserted into a through-going aperture and then expanded (not explicitly disclosed), or
an arm (operating rod 19, fig. 4) with a radial bore (notches 11, fig. 3) in which an indexer (end 21, fig. 3) is mounted, and where the indexer is configured to be slidable radially (“screwdriver coupling,” column 3, line 60) out of and/or into the radial bore by means of an indexing actuator (actuating component 35) arranged in the arm (column 4, lines 16-22).
Regarding claim 17, Gachot teaches wherein the rotation means (mandrel 43, fig. 4 and stuffing box 23, fig. 3) for performing the interrelated rotation about the axial rotation axis (column 4, lines 46-50) includes a turret (jaws 42, fig. 4) and a bearing (stuffing box 23, fig. 3; “cooperate laterally,” column 4, lines 4-9; construed as acting like a bearing for the rod 19 when the shells are rotated by the mandrel), where the bearing is arranged to surround the arm (stuffing box 23 surrounds the rod 19, fig. 3), and where the turret (jaws 42, fig. 4) is arranged to engage with an end of the valve housing (hub 6, fig. 4) so as to enable rotation of the valve housing parts (column 4, lines 37-41).
Regarding claim 19, Gachot teaches wherein the rotation axis (central axis of the mandrel 43, fig. 4) coincides with a central longitudinal axis of the valve housing (central axis of shells 1 and 2, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 20, Gachot teaches wherein the rotation means (mandrel 43, fig. 4 and stuffing box 23, fig. 3) for performing the interrelated rotation about the axial rotation axis (column 4, lines 46-50) includes a turret (stuffing box 23, fig. 3; “cooperate laterally,” column 4, lines 4-9; construed as acting like a turret for the rod 19 when the shells are rotated by the mandrel) and a bearing (mandrel 43, fig. 4), where the turret is arranged to surround the arm (stuffing box 23 surrounds the rod 19, fig. 3), and where the bearing (mandrel 43, fig. 4) is arranged to engage with an end of the valve housing (hub 6, fig. 4) so as to enable rotation of the valve housing parts (column 4, lines 46-50).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Gachot in view of Eklof as set forth above regarding claims 13 and 14 teaches the invention of claim 21. Specifically, Gachot teaches wherein the welding laser or welding torch (“welding machine,” column 4, line 46; construed as being located at the chamfers 9, fig. 4) and the indexer (end 21, fig. 4) are aligned in a radial direction (flattened end 21 and chamfers 9 are aligned along the outer radius of the ball 15, fig. 4) so that the indexer is held in a fixed position (“stationary,” column 4, line 52) relative to a welding spot during welding (“spot weld between the chamfers 9,” column 4, lines 43-44). Additionally, Eklof teaches the welding laser (“laser…welding,” para 0016; source of radiation 30, fig. 7) or welding torch (not explicitly disclosed).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gachot (US-4235003-A) in view of Eklof (US-20040117986-A1) as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Kajrup (US-3919756-A; examiner’s note: claim 14 remains rejected over Gachot in view of Eklof as described above; an alternative element in claim 14 is not taught by Gachot; this element from claim 14 is addressed now by Kajrup for the purpose of rejecting claim 16).
Regarding claim 14, Gachot teaches wherein the holding means (operating rod 19, fig. 4) includes:
an arm (operating rod 19, fig. 4) with a radial bore (notches 11, fig. 3) in which an indexer (end 21, fig. 3) is mounted, and where the indexer is configured to be slidable radially (“screwdriver coupling,” column 3, line 60) out of and/or into the radial bore by means of an indexing actuator (actuating component 35) arranged in the arm (column 4, lines 16-22).
Gachot does not explicitly disclose an expandable mandrel which is configured and arranged to hold the ball when inserted into a through-going aperture and then expanded.
However, in the same field of endeavor of ball valves, Kajrup teaches an expandable mandrel (subassembly 27, fig. 3; heads 29 and 30 cause the fixture member 28 to expand in a vertical direction when screw 31 is tightened, fig. 3) which is configured and arranged to hold the ball (valve element 8, fig. 3; column 2, lines 60-63) when inserted into a through-going aperture (left and right apertures of the valve element 8, fig. 3) and then expanded (“tightening the screw,” column 5, line 13).
Kajrup, fig. 3
PNG
media_image6.png
620
506
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Yokomi to include, an expandable mandrel which is configured and arranged to hold the ball when inserted into a through-going aperture and then expanded, in view of the teachings of Kajrup, by using the fixture 28 of fig. 3 to fix the ball when a bonnet is welded, as taught by Kajrup, to fix the ball 15, as taught by Gachot, in order to fix the valve element so that the bonnet can be sealed to the valve body by welding, for the advantage of accurately joining the bonnet and its cooperating seat portions to maintain close tolerances desired during the manufacturing and assembly of parts (Kajrup, column 2, lines 37-48 and column 6, line 63 to column 7, line 10).
Regarding claim 16, Gachot/Eklof/Kajrup teach wherein the indexer further includes a connecting bore for connecting at least one gas duct with the indexer's radial bore at least when the indexer is in the expanded position (not explicitly disclosed; the “indexer” is recited in the alternative in claim 14; construed as not being required if an “expandable mandrel” is taught, which is taught by Kajrup in fig. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claims, and specifically does not show either “wherein the central part of the valve housing is configured and arranged to receive a protective gas through a connection that extends through the arm and/or through a connection end's opening.
The closest prior art is Weckman (EP-1323965-A1) who teaches a “shielding gas pocket” shown as a gap 45 in fig. 1. Although this gap is termed a “shielding gas pocket” there is not actually shielding gas provided to this pocket (located between the housing and the ball) because it is closed off during the welding. In other words, it is not possible to provide gas to “the central part” or “inner space” of the valve housing in the invention taught by Weckman. Rather, Weckman teaches a preference for welding “without using shield gas” (para 0026) and instead creates features (such as a shielding gas pocket), which “makes the use of shielding gas redundant” (para 0028).
Other prior art that was considered includes Easterday (US-5726408-A), who teaches an invention similar to Weckman, albeit for pipes (not ball valves). The space 27 taught by Easterday is similar to Weckman’s shielding gas pocket. Neither reference teaches “receiving a protective gas” or the “introduction and/or withdrawal of a protective gas.” Instead, a gap is used to create space underneath a weld.
Two Lildholdt references were also considered (US-20160222481-A1 and WO-2014202096-A1). Although both these references teach using a protective atmosphere in ball valve welding, neither can be used to teach the limitations of claims 8 and 15.
Hummel (US5711474) was previously used for both these rejections. Modifying Gachot in view of Hummel is not physically possible because attaching Hummel’s tool 60 to the ball valve taught by Gachot would fix the ball valve and prevent the mandrel 43 from rotating, which is a necessary element in forming a weld along the edges of Gachot’s shells.
There is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the prior art to as claimed. Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the present invention as set forth in the independent claims.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 22 October 2025 have been fully considered.
II. Response to Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 103
Page 8 of the arguments references the previous Office action, where claims 8 and 15 were identified as having allowable subject matter. The examiner confirms that this is an accurate statement. The arguments then state that claim 1 and 13 have incorporated this allowable subject matter from claims 8 and 15.
However, claims 8 and 15 in the previous claim set were dependent on claims 7 and 14. The previous Office action stated that the independent claims “would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.” Although claims 7-8 were incorporated into claim 1, only claim 15 was incorporated into claim 13. Claim 14 was not incorporated into claim 13. As a result, claim 13 is not in a condition for allowance.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 12/17/2025
Prosecution Insights