DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 5-8 and 22, 33-34, 37-40 and 42-44 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schramm et al. (US 2010/0308503 A1) in view of Dunn (US 5,375,309).
Claim 1:
Schramm discloses a method ([0001]), comprising:
enabling a user to:
access a head (5, 6) and a tube expander (1) having a pistol-type orientation including a handle, and a body where the head (5, 6) hosts a jaw (10), the body extends longitudinally along a first plane and hosts a cone (2), the head (5, 6) is connectable to the body such that the head (5, 6) encloses the cone (2), the handle longitudinally extends from the body along a second plane intersecting the first plane, and the user holds the handle in the pistol-type orientation (fig.1, [0027], [0028] and [0010]);
enabling a user to connect the head (5, 6) to the body such that the head (5, 6) encloses the cone (2) (fig.1, [0027], [0028] and [0029]);
enabling a user to insert the jaw (10) into an open end portion of a tube (fig.1, [0032]); and
enabling a user to cause the jaw (10) to move within the open end portion as the user holds the handle in the pistol-type orientation and the cone (2) moving towards the jaw (10) along the first plane such that the jaw (10) expands the open end portion without rotating the tube expander (1) relative to the open end portion ([0032]),
wherein the tube expander (1) is a hand-holdable unit that is self-contained such that the hand-holdable unit that is self-contained such that the hand-holdable unit contains a power transmission unit (3, 4) enabling single-handed operation of the hand-holdable unit for the jaw (10) to expand the open end portion ([0027] and [0032]).
Schramm fails to disclose a trigger.
Dunn discloses a method (abstract), comprising
enabling a user to:
access a head (right end of horizontal portion of body) and a tube expander (10) having a pistol-type orientation including a handle (12), a body (20), and a trigger (14) where the head hosts a jaw (42), the body (20) extends longitudinally along a first plane, the head is a portion of the body (20) such that the head encloses a portion of the jaw (42), the handle (12) longitudinally extends from the body (20) along a second plane intersecting the first plane, and the trigger (14) is proximal to the body (20) such that the trigger (14) is pressable from the handle (12) when the user holds the handle (12) in the pistol-type orientation (figs. 1-3, col. 3, lines 14-17 and col. 4, lines 23-30);
insert the jaw (42) into an open end portion of a tube (figs. 1-3, col. 4, lines 31-37); and,
cause the jaw (42) to move within the open end portion based on the trigger (14) being pressed as the user holds the handle (12) in the pistol-type orientation and the jaw (42) moving along the first plane such that the jaw (42) expands the open end portion without rotating the tube expander (10) relative to the open end portion, wherein the tube expander (10) is a hand-holdable unit that is self-contained such that the hand- holdable unit contains a power transmission unit (26) enabling single-handed operation of the hand-holdable unit for the jaw (42) to expand the open end portion (figs 1-3, col. 3, lines 24-33 and col. 4, lines 31-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the tube expander of Schramm to include a trigger-actuated force transmission mechanism as taught by Dunn. See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
In addition, Schramm discloses a tube expander having a body, a head housing a jaw and a cone, and a drive system configured to apply axial force to move the cone toward the jaw to radially expand a tube end. Dunn teaches a hand-held tool having a handle and a trigger that when actuated by a user, mechanically generates and transmits axial force via a force-transmitting member (e.g., a push shaft) to perform work. Dunn therefore demonstrates that a trigger is not merely a control interface, but a structural actuator configured to generate axial force in a hand-held tool. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Dunn’s trigger-actuated axial force generation mechanism for Schramm’s powered actuation mechanism in order to provide a hand-held, self-contained tube expander operable by a user via a trigger while holding the handle, as claimed. See MPEP § 2143 C which describes the prima facie obviousness of the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. Such a modification merely replaces one known source of axial force with another known source of axial force (manual versus powered) while retaining the same structural arrangement of Schramm’s body, head, cone and jaw, and without altering the fundamental principle operation of axially moving a cone to expand a tube. Selection among known axial-force generation means, including electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic, or manual actuation, represents a predictable design choice yielding predictable results.
Claim 2:
Schramm in view of Dunn renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the head (Schramm, 5, 6) is connected to the body by threading (Schramm, [0029]).
Claim 5:
Schramm in view of Dunn renders obvious the method of claim 1, further comprising causing the jaw to move within the open end portion based on the cone moving away from the jaw such that the jaw disengages the open end portion (Schramm, fig. 1, [0032]).
Claim 6:
Schramm in view of Dunn renders obvious the method of claim 5, wherein the tube expander includes a single-action release actuator (Dunn, 14) that is activated to enable the cone to move away from the jaw (Dunn, col. 3, lines 4-13).
Claim 7:
Schramm in view of Dunn renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the head (Schramm, 5, 6) includes a tubular portion extending along the first plane, wherein the jaw extends from the tubular portion (Schramm, fig.1, [0027], [0028] and [0010]).
Claim 8:
Schramm in view of Dunn renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the first plane is perpendicular to the second plane (Schramm, fig. 1 and Dunn, figs. 1-3).
Claim 22:
Schramm in view of Dunn renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the jaw expands the open end portion in a radial movement (Schramm, fig. 1, [0033]).
Claim 33:
Schramm discloses a method ([0001]) comprising;
accessing a head (5, 6) and a tube expander (1) having a pistol-type orientation including a handle, and a body where the head (5, 6) hosts a jaw (10), the body extends longitudinally along a first plane and hosts a cone (2), the head (5, 6) is connectable to the body such that the head (5, 6) encloses the cone (2), the handle longitudinally extends from the body along a second plane intersecting the first plane, and the handle is held in the pistol-type orientation (fig.1, [0027], [0028] and [0010]);
connecting the head (5, 6) to the body such that the head (5, 6) encloses the cone (2) (fig.1, [0027], [0028] and [0029]);
inserting the jaw (10) into an open end portion of a tube (fig.1, [0032]); and
causing the jaw (10) to move within the open end portion as the handle is held in the pistol-type orientation and the cone (2) moving towards the jaw (10) along the first plane such that the jaw (10) expands the open end portion without rotating the tube expander (1) relative to the open end portion ([0032]),
wherein the tube expander (1) is a hand-holdable unit that is self-contained such that the hand-holdable unit contains a power transmission unit (3, 4) enabling single-handed operation of the hand-holdable unit for the jaw (10) to expand the open end portion ([0027] and [0032]).
Schramm fails to disclose a trigger.
Dunn discloses a method (abstract), comprising
accessing a head (right end of horizontal portion of body) and a tube expander (10) having a pistol-type orientation including a handle (12), a body (20), and a trigger (14) where the head hosts a jaw (42), the body (20) extends longitudinally along a first plane, the head integrated into the body (20) such that the head encloses a portion of the jaw (42), the handle (12) longitudinally extends from the body (20) along a second plane intersecting the first plane, and the trigger (14) is proximal to the body (20) such that the trigger (14) is pressable from the handle (12) when the user holds the handle (12) in the pistol-type orientation (figs. 1-3, col. 3, lines 14-17 and col. 4, lines 23-30);
inserting the jaw (42) into an open end portion of a tube (figs. 1-3, col. 4, lines 31-37); and,
causing the jaw (42) to move within the open end portion based on the trigger (14) being pressed as the user holds the handle (12) in the pistol-type orientation and the jaw (42) moving along the first plane such that the jaw (42) expands the open end portion without rotating the tube expander (10) relative to the open end portion, wherein the tube expander (10) is a hand-holdable unit that is self-contained such that the hand- holdable unit contains a power transmission unit (26) enabling single-handed operation of the hand-holdable unit for the jaw (42) to expand the open end portion (figs 1-3, col. 3, lines 24-33 and col. 4, lines 31-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the tube expander of Schramm to include a trigger-actuated force transmission mechanism as taught by Dunn. See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
In addition, Schramm discloses a tube expander having a body, a head housing a jaw and a cone, and a drive system configured to apply axial force to move the cone toward the jaw to radially expand a tube end. Dunn teaches a hand-held tool having a handle and a trigger that when actuated by a user, mechanically generates and transmits axial force via a force-transmitting member (e.g., a push shaft) to perform work. Dunn therefore demonstrates that a trigger is not merely a control interface, but a structural actuator configured to generate axial force in a hand-held tool. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Dunn’s trigger-actuated axial force generation mechanism for Schramm’s powered actuation mechanism in order to provide a hand-held, self-contained tube expander operable by a user via a trigger while holding the handle, as claimed. See MPEP § 2143 C which describes the prima facie obviousness of the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. Such a modification merely replaces one known source of axial force with another known source of axial force (manual versus powered) while retaining the same structural arrangement of Schramm’s body, head, cone and jaw, and without altering the fundamental principle operation of axially moving a cone to expand a tube. Selection among know axial-force generation means, including electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic, or manual actuation, represents a predictable design choice yielding predictable results.
Claim 34:
Schramm in view of Dunn renders obvious the method of claim 33, wherein the head (Schramm, 5, 6) is connected to the body by threading (Schramm, [0029]).
Claim 37:
Schramm in view of Dunn renders obvious the method of claim 33, further comprising causing the jaw to move within the open end portion based on the cone moving away from the jaw such that the jaw disengages the open end portion (Schramm, fig. 1, [0032]).
Claim 38:
Schramm in view of Dunn renders obvious the method of claim 37, wherein the tube expander includes a single-action release actuator (Dunn, 14) that is activated to enable the cone to move away from the jaw (Dunn, col. 3, lines 4-13).
Claim 39:
Schramm in view of Dunn renders obvious the method of claim 33, wherein the head (Schramm, 5, 6) includes a tubular portion extending along the first plane, wherein the jaw extends from the tubular portion (fig.1, [0027], [0028] and [0010]).
Claim 40:
Schramm in view of Dunn renders obvious the method of claim 33, wherein the first plane is perpendicular to the second plane (Schramm, fig. 1 and Dunn, figs. 1-3).
Claim 42:
Schramm in view of Dunn renders obvious the method of claim 33, wherein the jaw expands the open end portion in a radial movement (Schramm, fig. 1, [0033]).
Claim 43:
Schramm in view of Dunn renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the power transmission unit (Schramm, 3, 4) has a portion at least partially extending in the handle (Schramm, fig. 1, [0027] and [0032]).
Claim 44:
Schramm in view of Dunn renders obvious the method of claim 33, wherein the power transmission unit has a portion at least partially extending in the handle (Schramm, fig. 1, [0027] and [0032]).
Claims 3 and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schramm in view of Dunn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wagner (US 6,415,641 B1).
Claim 3:
Schramm in view of Dunn renders obvious the method of claim 1; and Schramm in view of Dunn fails to disclose the power transmission unit contains a source of fluid. Schramm teaches a piston (cone) may move reciprocally in an axial direction by an electric motor and gearbox, and further teaches the reciprocating movement of the piston (cone) can alternatively be achieved by manual, pneumatic, hydraulic or any other suitable means (Schramm, [0027]).
Wagner discloses a tube expander (1, 40) comprising a power transmission unit (33) wherein the power transmission unit contains a source of fluid (reservoir 33 for a hydraulic medium, preferably a hydraulic oil) wherein a cone (117) of the tube expander moves toward a jaw (120) of the tube expander based on the fluid flowing within the tube expander (1, 40) between the source of the fluid (33) and the cone (117) (figs. 1-2 and 6-8, col. 4, lines 32-45 and col. 10, lines 39-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement the alternative “hydraulic” actuation taught by Schramm by employing a known on-tool hydraulic reservoir arrangement as taught by Wagner, thereby providing a source of fluid within the tool for fluid-driven movement of the cone. See MPEP § 2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The results would have been predictable because Schramm expressly recognized hydraulic actuation as a suitable alternative means for reciprocating the piston (cone) and Wagner provides a known structural implementation for providing a fluid source within a hand-held tool. Such a substitution constitutes a simple substitution of one known actuation means for another to obtain the predictable results of movement of the cone to expand the tube end.
Claim 21:
Schramm in view of Dunn renders obvious the method of claim 1; and Schramm in view of Dunn fails to disclose the handle contains a source of fluid enabling the cone to move. Schramm teaches a piston (cone) may move reciprocally in an axial direction by an electric motor and gearbox, and further teaches the reciprocating movement of the piston (cone) can alternatively be achieved by manual, pneumatic, hydraulic or any other suitable means (Schramm, [0027]).
Wagner discloses a hand-held tool in which a hydraulic medium reservoir is arranged within the tool housing/grip region for compactness (reservoir 33 located in the tool structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to locate the hydraulic fluid source within the handle/grip portion of the tool when implementing a hydraulic actuation alternative for Schramm’s expander, in order to provide a compact, hand-held, self-contained configuration as taught by Wagner, because placement of a hydraulic reservoir within the hand-held structure is a known design choice for portability and weight distribution in hand-held tools. The results would have been predictable in that hydraulic fluid would be available within the handle to enable fluid-driven movement of the cone.
Claims 35 and 41 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schramm in view of Dunn as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Wagner (US 6,415,641 B1).
Claim 35:
Schramm in view of Dunn renders obvious the method of claim 33; and Schramm in view of Dunn fails to disclose the power transmission unit contains a source of fluid. Schramm teaches a piston (cone) may move reciprocally in an axial direction by an electric motor and gearbox, and further teaches the reciprocating movement of the piston (cone) can alternatively be achieved by manual, pneumatic, hydraulic or any other suitable means (Schramm, [0027]).
Wagner discloses a tube expander (1, 40) comprising a power transmission unit (33) wherein the power transmission unit contains a source of fluid (reservoir 33 for a hydraulic medium, preferably a hydraulic oil) wherein a cone (117) of the tube expander moves toward a jaw (120) of the tube expander based on the fluid flowing within the tube expander (1, 40) between the source of the fluid (33) and the cone (117) (figs. 1-2 and 6-8, col. 4, lines 32-45 and col. 10, lines 39-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement the alternative “hydraulic” actuation taught by Schramm by employing a known on-tool hydraulic reservoir arrangement as taught by Wagner, thereby providing a source of fluid within the tool for fluid-driven movement of the cone. See MPEP § 2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The results would have been predictable because Schramm expressly recognized hydraulic actuation as a suitable alternative means for reciprocating the piston (cone) and Wagner provides a known structural implementation for providing a fluid source within a hand-held tool. Such a substitution constitutes a simple substitution of one known actuation means for another to obtain the predictable results of movement of the cone to expand the tube end.
Claim 41:
Schramm in view of Dunn renders obvious the method of claim 33; and Schramm in view of Dunn fails to disclose the handle contains a source of fluid enabling the cone to move. Schramm teaches a piston (cone) may move reciprocally in an axial direction by an electric motor and gearbox, and further teaches the reciprocating movement of the piston (cone) can alternatively be achieved by manual, pneumatic, hydraulic or any other suitable means (Schramm, [0027]).
Wagner discloses a hand-held tool in which a hydraulic medium reservoir is arranged within the tool housing/grip region for compactness (reservoir 33 located in the tool structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to locate the hydraulic fluid source within the handle/grip portion of the tool when implementing a hydraulic actuation alternative for Schramm’s expander, in order to provide a compact, hand-held, self-contained configuration as taught by Wagner, because placement of a hydraulic reservoir within the hand-held structure is a known design choice for portability and weight distribution in hand-held tools. The results would have been predictable in that hydraulic fluid would be available within the handle to enable fluid-driven movement of the cone.
Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schramm in view of Dunn and Wagner as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Svoboda (US 4,494,398).
Schramm in view of Dunn and Wagner renders obvious the method of claim 3, wherein the tube expander includes a first valve (Wagner, pressure limit valve) and a second valve (Wagner, 36) wherein the second valve (Wagner, 36) causes the fluid to enable the cone to move towards the jaw (col. 4, lines 38-50 and col. 7, lines 22-31). Schramm in view of Dunn and Wagner fails to disclose the first valve is positioned between the source of the fluid and the second valve. Instead, Schramm in view of Dunn and Wagner does not display the positioning of the first valve (Wagner, pressure limit valve) in the drawings (Wagner, col. 7, lines 46-50).
Svoboda discloses a method of providing an improved tubing expansion apparatus (abstract) comprising
enabling a user to:
access a head (48) and a tube expander (10) having a pistol-type orientation including a handle (52), a body (12) and a trigger (56, 58) (figs. 1-3, col. 4, lines 10-12, col. 6, lines 17-22 and col. 6, lines 32-37);
where the head (48) hosts a jaw (42) (figs. 1-3, col. 5, lines 55-64),
the body (12) extends longitudinally along a first plane (horizontal, fig. 2) and hosts a cone (36) (figs. 1-3, col. 4, line 65 bridging col. 5, line 11),
the head (48) is connectable to the body (12) such that the head (48) surrounds a portion of the cone (36) (figs. 1-3, col. 4, line 65 bridging col. 5, line 11),
the handle (52) longitudinally extends from the body (12) along a second plane, (vertical, fig. 2) intersecting the first plane (horizontal, fig. 2) (figs. 1-3) and
the trigger (56, 58) is proximal to the body (12) such that the trigger (56, 58) is pressable from the handle (52) when the user holds the handle (52) in the pistol-type orientation (figs. 1-3, col. 6, lines 32-37);
connect the head (48) to the body (12) such that the head (48) surrounds a portion of the cone (36) (figs. 1-3, col. 4, line 65 bridging col. 5, line 11);
insert the jaw (42) into an open end portion of a tube (tubing) (figs. 1-3, col. 5, lines 21-43); and
cause the jaw (42) to move within the open end portion based on the trigger (56, 58) being pressed as the user holds the handle (52) in the pistol-type orientation and the cone (36) moving towards the jaw (42) such that the jaw (42) expands the open end portion (figs. 1-3, col. 5, line 55 bridging col. 6, line 9);
wherein the tube expander (10) includes a first valve (94) and a second valve (90), wherein the first valve (94) is positioned between the source of the fluid and the second valve (90), wherein the second valve (90) causes the fluid to enable the cone (36) to move towards the jaw (42) (Svoboda, fig. 4, col. 7, lines 39-43 and col. 7, lines 58-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was made, to improve the method of Schramm in view of Dunn and Wagner by positioning the first valve between the source of the fluid and the second valve as taught by Svoboda in order to control the flow of pressurized hydraulic fluid supplied to the expander unit (Svoboda, col. 7, lines 39-43). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The results would have been predictable because the prior art of record is drawn to methods and devices for expansion of tube ends.
Claim 36 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schramm in view of Dunn and Wagner as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Svoboda (US 4,494,398).
Claim 36:
Schramm in view of Dunn and Wagner renders obvious the method of claim 35, wherein the tube expander includes a first valve (Wagner, pressure limit valve) and a second valve (Wagner, 36) wherein the second valve (Wagner, 36) causes the fluid to enable the cone to move towards the jaw (col. 4, lines 38-50 and col. 7, lines 22-31). Schramm in view of Dunn and Wagner fails to disclose the first valve is positioned between the source of the fluid and the second valve. Instead, Schramm in view of Dunn and Wagner does not display the positioning of the first valve (Wagner, pressure limit valve) in the drawings (Wagner, col. 7, lines 46-50).
Svoboda discloses a method of providing an improved tubing expansion apparatus (abstract) comprising
enabling a user to:
access a head (48) and a tube expander (10) having a pistol-type orientation including a handle (52), a body (12) and a trigger (56, 58) (figs. 1-3, col. 4, lines 10-12, col. 6, lines 17-22 and col. 6, lines 32-37);
where the head (48) hosts a jaw (42) (figs. 1-3, col. 5, lines 55-64),
the body (12) extends longitudinally along a first plane (horizontal, fig. 2) and hosts a cone (36) (figs. 1-3, col. 4, line 65 bridging col. 5, line 11),
the head (48) is connectable to the body (12) such that the head (48) surrounds a portion of the cone (36) (figs. 1-3, col. 4, line 65 bridging col. 5, line 11),
the handle (52) longitudinally extends from the body (12) along a second plane, (vertical, fig. 2) intersecting the first plane (horizontal, fig. 2) (figs. 1-3) and
the trigger (56, 58) is proximal to the body (12) such that the trigger (56, 58) is pressable from the handle (52) when the user holds the handle (52) in the pistol-type orientation (figs. 1-3, col. 6, lines 32-37);
connect the head (48) to the body (12) such that the head (48) surrounds a portion of the cone (36) (figs. 1-3, col. 4, line 65 bridging col. 5, line 11);
insert the jaw (42) into an open end portion of a tube (tubing) (figs. 1-3, col. 5, lines 21-43); and
cause the jaw (42) to move within the open end portion based on the trigger (56, 58) being pressed as the user holds the handle (52) in the pistol-type orientation and the cone (36) moving towards the jaw (42) such that the jaw (42) expands the open end portion (figs. 1-3, col. 5, line 55 bridging col. 6, line 9);
wherein the tube expander (10) includes a first valve (94) and a second valve (90), wherein the first valve (94) is positioned between the source of the fluid and the second valve (90), wherein the second valve (90) causes the fluid to enable the cone (36) to move towards the jaw (42) (Svoboda, fig. 4, col. 7, lines 39-43 and col. 7, lines 58-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was made, to improve the method of Schramm in view of Dunn and Wagner by positioning the first valve between the source of the fluid and the second valve as taught by Svoboda in order to control the flow of pressurized hydraulic fluid supplied to the expander unit (Svoboda, col. 7, lines 39-43). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The results would have been predictable because the prior art of record is drawn to methods and devices for expansion of tube ends.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 17 December 2025, with respect to examiner’s drawing objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 17 December 2025, with respect to examiner’s claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive.
On page 9, applicant argues the term "power transmission unit" is a term of art denoting structure, because the term denotes a specific class of physical structures to those of ordinary skill in the mechanical arts. A "transmission" or "transmission unit" is a recognized structural assembly, typically comprising gears, hydraulic or pneumatic circuits, linkages, drives, or electrical circuitry that transfer energy from a source to an output. Just as terms like “gearbox” compressor, filter or amplifier are defined by their function, but clearly denotes structure, a “power transmission unit” denotes the structural assembly that transmit power (applicant arguments, page 9 of 18, lines 8-16). Applicant further argues a "power transmission unit" (or simply "transmission") is exemplified as a recognized term of art denoting a physical assembly that transfers energy from a power source to an output mechanism. It is not an abstract concept or a "generic placeholder," but a specific structural classification that encompasses physical components, such as gear trains, hydraulic or pneumatic circuits, linkages, drives, or electrical circuitry for example (see applicant arguments, page 13 of 18, lines 1-6). Therefore, examiner’s claim interpretation of the phrase “power transmission unit” under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 17 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8, 21-22 and 33-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-8, 21-22 and 33-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 17 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8, 21-22 and 33-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-8, 21-22 and 33-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 17 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 5-8, 22, 33-34, 37-40 and 42-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schramm in view of Dunn have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive because they incorrectly characterize the principle of operation of Schramm as the use of an electric motor. The principle of operation of Schramm is the axial movement of a cone (or piston) toward expanding jaws to flare a tube end, while the motor is merely one disclosed means for generating the axial force required to produce that movement. Substituting a different known mechanism for generating axial force does not alter this principle of operation.
On pages 14-16, Applicant argues the proposed combination of Schramm and Dunn constitutes impermissible hindsight reconstruction, asserting that Schramm relies on a powered actuation mechanism while Dunn is manually operated, and that substituting Dunn’s trigger mechanism would change the principle of operation of Schramm. Examiner disagrees.
Schram teaches a tube expander in which axial force is applied along a longitudinal axis to move a cone toward a jaw to radially expand a tube end. Schramm further teaches the axial force may be achieved by manual, pneumatic, hydraulic or any other suitable means (see Schramm [0027]).
Dunn explicitly teaches that axial force may be generated manually in a hand-held tool by squeezing a trigger, which directly drives a force-transmitting member forward (see Dunn, col.4, lines 1-12). Dunn, therefore, demonstrates that manual trigger actuation was a known and predictable means of generating axial force in hand-held tools. In addition to Schramm, Dunn also teaches the axial force may be achieved by manual, pneumatic, hydraulic or any other suitable means (see Dunn col. 4, lines 1-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Dunn’s manual trigger-based axial force generation for Schramm’s powered actuation mechanism in order to provide a hand-held, self-contained, single-hand operable tube expander, as claimed. Such a substitution merely replaces one known source of axial force with another known source of axial force (manual vs powered) without altering the underlying principle of operation of Schramm, namely axial movement of a driven member to effect radial expansion. Selection among known force-generating means, including electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic, or manual actuation, represents a predictable design choice and does not rely on hindsight reconstruction. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-2, 5-8, 22, 33-34, 37-40 and 42-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hansenberg et al. (US 9,492,857 B2) discloses a hand-held flaring tool. Geurts (US 2003/0204943 A1) discloses a hand-held pipe end expanding tool. Velte (US 5,046,349) discloses a hand-held expansion tool.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
14 January 2026