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 .
Applicant amended Claim 1. Support for the amendments is found in the original filing. No new matter is presented.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 12/29/2025.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/28/2025.
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: “feeding mechanism” in Claim 1 Line 3 and “bending force applying part” in Claim 1 Line 10.
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 1-5 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.
In Claim 1, the language “and including a vector component in parallel to the feeding direction being in a negative direction that is opposite to the feeding direction” in Lines 22-23 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear from the claim language whether the “vector component” is a configuration of the second nozzle, first injection direction, second injection direction, or has some other meaning entirely.
It is further unclear how a “vector component” can be a physical, tangible element of the claimed apparatus and this is due to the fact that the “vector component” as presently described does not indicate a direction or orientation of a physical element. There is a lack of nexus between the “vector component in parallel to the feeding direction being in a negative direction that is opposite to the feeding direction” and the “second nozzle.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-5 are rejected for their dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serizawa et al. US 20170304883 A1 in view of Uematsu et al. US 20190085424 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Serizawa et al. ‘883 teaches a cooling device for a hollow bent part manufacturing apparatus (Abstract) including a feeding mechanism feeding a hollow material made of a metal in a feeding direction which is a longitudinal direction (X-axis) thereof while supporting the hollow material at a first position [0016]; a heating coil heating the hollow material at a second position downstream of the first position [0094], (Fig. 1); a cooling device cooling the hollow material by injection of a refrigerant at a third position downstream of the second position [0016] (Fig. 22); and a bending apparatus including an arm forming a bent portion in the hollow material by gripping the hollow material at a fourth position downstream of the third position and moving a gripping position in directions in two dimensions or directions in three dimensions [0096], the cooling device comprises a first cooling mechanism and a second cooling mechanism; notwithstanding the 112(b) rejection above, Serizawa et al. ‘883 teaches the first cooling mechanism includes a first nozzle disposed aligned with the heating coil on a downstream side when viewed in a first virtual plane including an extension line of an axis in the feeding direction of the hollow material at the first position and whose injection direction of the refrigerant is a first injection direction (Fig. 1); Serizawa et al. ‘883 teaches a second nozzle disposed aligned with the first nozzle on a downstream side when viewed in the first virtual plane and whose injection direction of the refrigerant is a second injection direction intersecting the first injection direction [0099-0101]. Further regarding the newly amended limitation of Claim 1, Serizawa et al. ‘883 teaches, e.g., at [0134] that first and second cooling mediums intersect from what constitute first and second cooling mechanisms comprising first and second nozzles. Serizawa et al. ‘883 further teaches at [0089] an upstream injection direction, with a negative X-axis direction opposing the feeding direction, meeting the newly amended limitations of the instant Claim for a vector component in parallel to the feeding direction being in a negative direction that is opposite to the feeding direction.
Serizawa et al. ‘883 teaches a control unit controls the release of first and second cooling mediums by controlling the cooling mechanisms but does not expressly teach a first valve selectively switching a supply destination of the refrigerant between one and the other of the first nozzle and the second nozzle.
However, Uematsu et al. ‘424 teaches a metal hollow part cooling device wherein a valve is provided at each gas tube providing the cooling gas supply source to the hollow metal part [0050]. The valves may be configured to emit a different pressure at and control each individual nozzle, which meets the limitation for a first valve selectively switching a supply destination of the refrigerant between one and the other of the first nozzle and the second nozzle. Serizawa et al. ‘883 further teaches flow rates of the second cooling media within a plurality of second cooling apparatuses disposed along the feeding direction may be controlled independently [0026].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to install valves, known in the art to be useful for altering the supply of cooling gases, in the cooling device of Serizawa et al. ‘883 in order to independently control the supply of cooling gasses to the part to be cooled based on the teachings of Uematsu et al. ‘424 at [0050] and Serizawa et al. ‘883 at [00206], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Modified with the addition of valves as taught in Uematsu et al. ‘424, Serizawa et al. ‘883 teaches a first control unit controlling the first valve [00216-0217].
Regarding the presence of a third nozzle opposite the first nozzle and the second nozzle, Serizawa et al. ‘883 does not expressly teach a third nozzle. However, Uematsu et al. ‘424 teaches the presence of a cooling nozzle on the underside of a hollow metal part undergoing a bending force at (Fig. 6),[0030].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide on a side opposite to the first nozzle and the second nozzle of Serizawa et al. ‘883, a third nozzle, meeting the limitations for the second cooling mechanism includes a third nozzle disposed on a side opposite to the first nozzle and the second nozzle with the extension line sandwiched therebetween when viewed in the first virtual plane.
Further, the inclusion of a third nozzle constitutes a duplication of parts obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention in order to treat additional areas of the hollow metal workpiece. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Regarding the angle of injection, it can be visually assessed by one of ordinary skill that the angles of injection directions taught in both Serizawa et al. ‘883 (e.g., Fig 28) and Uematsu et al. ‘424 (e.g. Fig. 6) comport with the limitations of the instant Claim that injection direction of the third nozzle refrigerant is a third injection direction forming an angle of 20 degrees or more and 70 degrees or less with respect to a bent circumferential surface of the bent portion. Further, Uematsu et al. ‘424 teaches the gas injection direct ion ranges from 5 to 45 degrees. Serizawa et al. ‘883 teaches nozzle ejection at an angle of 60 degrees or smaller and the bend angle of the hollow metal part is 45 degrees or smaller [0119].
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding the limitations that the feeding mechanism includes an electric servo cylinder, a ball screw, a timing belt, or a chain, Serizawa et al. ‘883 teaches at [0092] its feeding mechanism can adopt a known configuration and is not limited, but does not detail the type of configuration.
However, Uematsu et al. ‘424 expressly teaches feeding the metal hollow part though a ball screw at [0022].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to use a ball screw as the feeding mechanism of Serizawa et al. ‘883 in order to efficiently feed the metal workpiece to be bent, based on the teachings of Uematsu et al. ‘424 at [0022].
Regarding the limitation that the second control unit controls the second control valve selectively switching the supply destination of the refrigerant between one and the other of the first part nozzle and the second part nozzle, Uematsu et al. ‘424 further teaches multiple valves [0050], meeting the limitation for a second valve which selectively switches a supply destination of the refrigerant between one and the other of the first part nozzle and the second part nozzle. Serizawa et al. ‘883 further teaches a second control unit [0262-0264] which controls the second valve.
The disclosure of valves reads on the capability of the device to switch the controls on and off and to switch the supply destination of the refrigerant between one and the other of the first part nozzle and the second part nozzle. The cooling device of Serizawa et al. ‘883 modified by Uematsu et al. ‘424 meets the limitation of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Serizawa et al. ‘883 teaches the limitations set forth above. Modified Serizawa et al. ‘883 teaches a third nozzle, meeting the limitations of the instant claims for the second cooling mechanism including a first part nozzle and a second part nozzle constituting the third nozzle.
Uematsu et al. ‘424 further teaches multiple valves [0050], meeting the limitation for a second valve which selectively switches a supply destination of the refrigerant between one and the other of the first part nozzle and the second part nozzle. Serizawa et al. ‘883 further teaches a second control unit [0262-0264] which controls the second valve.
As set forth above regarding the angle of injection, it can be visually assessed by one of ordinary skill that the angles of injection direction taught in both Serizawa et al. ‘883 (e.g., Fig 28) and Uematsu et al. ‘424 (e.g. Fig. 6) comport with the limitations of the instant Claim that an injection direction of the refrigerant from the first part nozzle when viewed in the first virtual plane is 20 degrees or more and 70 degrees or less with respect to the extension line, and an injection direction of the refrigerant from the second part nozzle when viewed in the first virtual plane is the third injection direction. Uematsu et al. ‘424 further teaches the gas injection direct ion ranges from 5 to 45 degrees. Serizawa et al. ‘883 further teaches nozzle ejection at an angle of 60 degrees or smaller and the bend angle of the hollow metal part is 45 degrees or smaller [0119].
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Serizawa et al. ‘883 modified by Uematsu et al. ‘424 meets the limitation of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claims 3, 4 and 5, Serizawa et al. ‘883 expressly teaches embodiments including a plurality of cooling mechanisms [0031].
Regarding the presence of a third cooling mechanism including fourth and fifth nozzles and a fourth cooling mechanism including a sixth nozzle, Uematsu et al. ‘424 teaches a plurality of cooling mechanisms nozzles controlled via valves [0030-0031, 0048, 0050].
Regarding the limitation that the third control unit which controls the third valve selectively switching the supply destination of the refrigerant between one and the other of the first part nozzle and the second part nozzle, Uematsu et al. ‘424 further teaches multiple valves [0050], meeting the limitation for a second valve which selectively switches a supply destination of the refrigerant between one and the other of the first part nozzle and the second part nozzle. Serizawa et al. ‘883 further teaches a second control unit [0262-0264] which controls the second valve. The disclosure of valves reads on the capability of the device to switch the controls on and off and to switch the supply destination of the refrigerant between one and the other of the fourth nozzle and the fifth nozzle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide third and fourth cooling mechanisms to the cooling device of Serizawa et al. ‘883, and additional valves and controls in order to quench treat the steel workpiece at additional areas along the hollow metal part based on the teachings of Uematsu et al. ‘424 at [0053].
Further, the inclusion of a fifth and sixth nozzle constitutes a duplication of parts obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention in order to treat additional areas of the hollow metal workpiece. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
As set forth above regarding the angle of injection, it can be visually assessed by one of ordinary skill that the angles of injection direction taught in both Serizawa et al. ‘883 (e.g., Fig 28) and Uematsu et al. ‘424 (e.g. Fig. 6) comport with the limitations of the instant Claim that an injection direction of the refrigerant from the first part nozzle when viewed in the first virtual plane is 20 degrees or more and 70 degrees or less with respect to the extension line, and an injection direction of the refrigerant from the second part nozzle when viewed in the first virtual plane is the third injection direction. Uematsu et al. ‘424 further teaches the gas injection direct ion ranges from 5 to 45 degrees. Serizawa et al. ‘883 further teaches nozzle ejection at an angle of 60 degrees or smaller and the bend angle of the hollow metal part is 45 degrees or smaller [0119].
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The cooling device of Serizawa et al. ‘883 modified by Uematsu et al. ‘424 meets the limitation of the instant Claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claimed invention is not satisfied by the teachings of Serizawa et al. ‘883. However, as set forth above, Serizawa et al. ‘833 expressly teaches e.g. at [0134] that first and second cooling mediums are ejected from first and second cooling mechanisms, and that their streams collide, or intersect. Applicant refers to a third embodiment of Serizawa et al. ‘833 depicted in Fig. 17 and a method of emitting draining water and argues a second nozzle emitting a cooling medium is not described. However, Serizawa et al. ‘833 expressly teaches first and second spray nozzles, e.g. at [0200], and Figs. 1-4. Nozzles (54) are depicted with intersecting streams of cooling medium, e.g. in Fig. 4 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
407
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 Serizawa et al. ‘833
Applicant argues the emission of draining water and the first cooling medium in the cooling device of Serizawa et al. ‘883 “are always made at the same time.” However, a reference is prior art for all that it teaches and Serizawa et al. ‘883 additionally makes clear e.g. at [0034] the embodiment of a draining mechanism is optional. Both Serizawa et al. ‘883 and Uematsu et al. ‘424 teach adjusting the position of nozzles and valves respectively, in order to treat a hollow metal part being formed with cooling medium. Additional modifications to the nozzle and valve positions would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention in order to heat treat and quench the hollow metal part at select regions.
As set forth above, the inclusion of additional nozzles constitutes a duplication of parts obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention in order to treat additional areas of a hollow metal workpiece during processing. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. The cooling device of Serizawa et al. ‘883 modified by Uematsu et al. ‘424 may have varying nozzle directions and the disclosure of valves reads on the capability of the device to switch the controls on and off and to switch the supply destination of the refrigerant between one and the other of different nozzles, meeting the limitations of the instantly claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2776230 A teaches a method of quenching steel pipe with intersecting top and bottom coolant nozzles with intersecting streams.
US 8404062 B2 teaches on/off control of a cooling device for a rod-like flow-cooled hot strip.
US 7556701 B2 teaches conveyed top and underside cooling of a hot rolled striped.
US 10329634 B2 teaches a cooling apparatus for a hollow bent metal pipe.
WO 2017164016 A1 teaches a hot-bending and quenching device with rollers that perform bending, shearing, and twisting deformation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733