DETAILED ACTION
This final office action is in response to amendments filed on 12/16/25.
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 .
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulton et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2004/0261968 [Fulton], in view of Tachibana et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2003/0024496 [Tachibana].
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Fulton discloses an information providing device that provides information to a formed product formed by a forming device including a die for forming a metal material, wherein the information is provided to the formed product after being formed by the forming device, and the information is information from which at least forming conditions of the formed product are acquirable [a pin stamper marks each extracted die casting with a date of manufacture, an identification of the die casting machine used to form the die cast and a unique identifier, which can be used to access a data record that stores physicals parameters of the die casting process for each extracted die, paragraphs 0035, 0036, 0038 0045 and 0064], and
the information providing device comprises an information acquisition unit that acquires the forming conditions [acquiring data from sensors that measure physical parameters of the die casting process, paragraph 0043].
Fulton discloses marking a die casted metal object with information. Fulton does not disclose that the die casted metal object is a pipe with a flange portion. Like Fulton, Tachibana discloses performing die casting to produce metal objects. Specifically, Tachibana discloses using die casting to produce a metal intake manifold that includes a pipe with a flange [Figure 15 and paragraph 0124]. Since it was known in the art to use die casting to produce metal pipes with flanges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the Fulton teachings to known systems that perform die casting to produce metal pipes with flanges by marking the metal pipes with flanges in order to provide unique identifications that facilitate monitoring to associate manufacturing defects with physical conditions of the manufacturing [Fulton, paragraph 0041]. Fulton and Tachibana do not disclose that the marking is placed on the pipe portion of the produced metal pipe with flange. One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that there are a finite number of locations to place a marking on a metal pipe with flange (either on a pipe portion or a flange portion). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to locate the markings on either of the pipe portion or the flange portion since either location offers sufficient visibility for reading of the markings.
Regarding claim 2, Fulton further discloses that the information is represented in such a manner that the forming conditions are directly readable [date of manufacture and the machine used to manufacture the dis casts are marked on each extracted die cast, paragraphs 0036 and 0038].
Regarding claim 3, Fulton further discloses that the information is expressed by a character or a symbol [date of manufacture and the machine used to manufacture the dis casts are marked on each extracted die cast, paragraphs 0036 and 0038].
Regarding claim 4, Fulton further discloses that the information is represented in such a manner that a database associated with the forming conditions is capable of being referred to [the unique identifier is be used to access a data record that stores physicals parameters of the die casting process for each extracted die, paragraph 0045].
Regarding claim 5, Fulton further discloses that the forming conditions include a heating temperature of the metal material, a die opening width for overhanging a flange portion of the formed product, a pressure and timing of primary blowing, a die clamping force and timing for forming a pipe portion of the formed product, and a pressure and timing of secondary blowing [temperature of the molten metal or metal alloy, paragraph 0043].
Regarding claim 6, Fulton further discloses a marking unit that provides the information by marking the formed product [pin stamper, paragraphs 0035 and 0064].
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Fulton further discloses that the marking may be performed using a wide variety of techniques and that trimming of the extracted casing is performed after the marking [paragraphs 0046 and 0058]. Fulton and Tachibana do not disclose that a laser device is used to perform the marking and trimming. Examiner takes official notice that laser devices were conventionally used to perform marking and trimming on metal workpieces in manufacturing systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a conventional laser device to perform the marking and trimming in Fulton and Tachibana.
Regarding claim 9, Fulton further discloses a determination unit that determines the forming conditions on the basis of the information provided to the formed product [the unique identifier is be used to access a data record that stores physicals parameters of the die casting process for each extracted die, paragraph 0045].
Regarding claim 11, Fulton further discloses that the information providing device is provided between the forming device and an accumulation unit that accumulates a plurality of the formed products [the marking is performed after the die cast is formed and before inspection and shipment to customers, paragraphs 0045-0048].
Regarding claim 12, Fulton discloses a determination system that performs a determination on a formed product formed by a forming device having a die for forming a metal material, wherein forming conditions of the formed product are determined on the basis of information provided to the formed product, and the information is information from which at least the forming conditions of the formed product are acquirable [a pin stamper marks each extracted die casting with a date of manufacture, an identification of the die casting machine used to form the die cast and a unique identifier, which can be used to access a data record that stores physicals parameters of the die casting process for each extracted die, paragraphs 0035, 0036, 0038 0045 and 0064].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 and 9-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
It appears that Applicant has contested the Official Notice taken by the Examiner in the rejection to claims 7 and 8 in the previous office action. Specifically, Applicant contests the Examiners statement of official notice that laser devices that perform marking and trimming were conventionally used before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
MPEP 2144.03(C) states that "To adequately traverse such a finding, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See 37 CFR 1.111(b)” (emphasis added). Such reasoning has not been provided by Applicant. Therefore, Examiner hereby requests Applicant provide reasoning why laser devices that perform marking and trimming were conventionally were not used before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Even though Applicant has failed to adequately traverse the taking of Official Notice, Examiner, in the effort of providing compact prosecution and ensuring the record is clear, provides the following documentary evidence to support the taking of Official Notice:
Matsuda et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2012/0182374 discloses that since a laser marking apparatus works by irradiating a target with a laser beam, the use application of a laser marking apparatus is not limited to just laser marking operations, but may also include cutting, trimming and scribing [see paragraph 0119].
Sato, US Patent Application Publication no. 2017/0125976, discloses a fiber laser that has configurable output power settings and may be used to perform laser cutting, trimming and marking operations [see paragraphs 0004, 0007 and 0042].
Hilliard, US Patent Application Publication no. 2008/0141534 discloses a laser cutting station that may perform laser cutting and also perform laser etching (marking) by altering laser power and feed rate [see paragraphs 0094-0097].
MPEP 2144.03(D) states that “If the examiner adds a reference in the next Office action after applicant’s rebuttal, and the newly added reference is added only as directly corresponding evidence to support the prior common knowledge finding, and it does not result in a new issue or constitute a new ground of rejection, the Office action may be made final.” Since the newly added reference listed above is added only as directly corresponding evidence to support the prior common knowledge finding and does not result in a new issue or new ground of rejection, this Office action may be made final.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL B YANCHUS III whose telephone number is (571)272-3678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/PAUL B YANCHUS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 April 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights