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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because some of the handwritten reference numerals are difficult to read, particularly in Figures 2, 5, and 6.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 5, and 13, the scopes of the limitations “substantially extended” (Claim 1 lines 7-8), “substantially converging” (Claim 5 line 3), and “substantially…filled” (Claim 13 line 2) are unclear. The term “substantially” as it pertains to the degrees to which the distribution channels extend from the wall of the die to the impression, converge toward the impression, and are filled with the lubricating-cooling liquid is not defined by the claims, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the metes and bounds thereof, thus rendering the claims indefinite.
Regarding Claims 4 and 8, the phrases "preferably" and “more preferably” render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Further, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Each claim recites dimensions of at least one of the distribution channels, including an inclination angle of “between about 5˚ and about 85˚” and a diameter of “lower than about 0.4 mm/about 0.3 mm/about 0.2 mm”; however, no tolerance is provided in either the specification or the claims with which to ascertain the metes and bounds of the term “about” for each of these limitations. The claims are thus rendered indefinite.
Regarding Claim 5, the scope of the limitation “comprising a plurality of inclined distribution channels” is unclear. Claim 4, from which Claim 5 depends, recites “at least one distribution channel inclined with respect to said feeding channel and/or said gap”; is the plurality of inclined distribution channels of Claim 5 meant to further recite the at least one inclined distribution channel of Claim 4 (i.e. by specifying that “at least one” is “a plurality”), or are these inclined distribution channels separate and additional to that/those of Claim 4? For examination purposes, the former interpretation will be used.
Claims 2-3, 6-7, 9-12, and 14 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon Claim 1.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamazaki (JP 2009297741). For text citations of Yamazaki, refer to the machine translation provided as Non-Patent Literature.
Regarding Claim 1, Yamazaki discloses (Figures 1 and 3-5) a mould (mold 1) for hot forging, comprising: a first half-mould (die 5) and a second half-mould (assembly of punch 3 and blank holder 7), each comprising a mould holder (metal plates 71a and 91d/e) having a recess (recess formed by cooling medium supply path 45 in metal plate 71a, and groove 95), and a die (metal plates 71b-p and 91a-c) provided with an impression (molding surfaces 31 and 9), wherein the die is combined with the mould holder at the recess, characterised in that at least one of said first half-mould and said second half-mould is provided with at least one feeding channel (cooling medium introduction paths 47/21/59) to feed a lubricating-cooling liquid, substantially extended from an outer wall of the mould holder to the recess of the mould holder (clearly seen in figures), and with a plurality of distribution channels (cooling medium supplying paths 45/19/57 and cooling medium ejection holes 41/43/17/18/55) for the lubricating-cooling liquid, wherein at least one quota of said plurality of distribution channels comprises distribution channels, which extend from a wall of the die facing said recess, to said impression (cooling medium supplying paths 45/19 and cooling medium ejection holes 41/43/17/18), wherein said at least one feeding channel and the distribution channels of said plurality of distribution channels face at least one gap formed between the mould holder and the respective die at said recess (gap formed by cooling medium supply path 45 between metal plates 71a and 71b, and gap formed by groove 95 between metal plates 91d and 91c).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamazaki discloses (Figure 1) said plurality of distribution channels (cooling medium supplying paths 45/19/57 and cooling medium ejection holes 41/43/17/18/55) comprises distribution channels parallel to each other (clearly seen in figure).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamazaki discloses (Figure 1) said plurality of distribution channels (cooling medium supplying paths 45/19/57 and cooling medium ejection holes 41/43/17/18/55) comprises at least one distribution channel substantially perpendicular to said feeding channel (cooling medium introduction paths 47/21/59) and/or said gap (clearly seen in figure).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamazaki discloses (Figure 7) said plurality of distribution channels comprises at least one distribution channel (cooling medium supply path 122) inclined with respect to said feeding channel (cooling medium introduction path 21, shown in Figure 1) and/or said gap, preferably by an angle of between about 5° and about 85° (the punch 120 of the embodiment shown in Figure 7 has a curved molding surface 130 at its upper end, resulting in a cooling medium supply path 122 which is inclined relative to the cooling medium introduction path 21; Figure 7 shows an inclination angle that appears to be between about 5° and about 85°).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamazaki discloses (Figure 7) a plurality of inclined distribution channels (cooling medium supply paths 120; [0039] lns 13-14, [0044] lns 5-6: punch 120 has the same basic configuration as punch 3 of the embodiment shown in Figures 1 and 5, which has eight coolant supply paths 19, therefore there are eight inclined cooling medium supply paths 120), wherein at least one quota of said plurality of inclined distribution channels comprises inclined distribution channels, which are substantially converging toward said impression (Figure 7 shows cooling medium supply path 122 inclined inwards towards the center of punch 120 at the upper end thereof; assuming some degree of symmetry of the shape of the punch, at least one other cooling medium supply path will be similarly inclined, and thus there is a quota of inclined distribution channels 122 which are inclined towards each other, i.e. substantially converging, as they approach the upper surface of molding surface 130).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamazaki discloses said plurality of distribution channels comprises at least one non-linear distribution channel ([0021] lns 3-6).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamazaki discloses (Figure 1) said at least one quota of said plurality of distribution channels (cooling medium supplying paths 45/19 and cooling medium ejection holes 41/43/17/18) comprises at least one non-linear distribution channel comprising a first length (vertical segments of cooling medium supplying paths 45/19) substantially perpendicular to said feeding channel (cooling medium introduction paths 47/21) and/or said gap, and/or a second length substantially perpendicular to said impression (cooling medium ejection holes 41/43/17/18).
Regarding Claim 8, Yamazaki discloses (Figure 1) said distribution channels (cooling medium ejection holes 41/43/17/18/55) have a diameter lower than about 0.4 mm, preferably lower than about 0.3 mm, more preferably equal to or lower than about 0.2 mm ([0043] lns 11-12).
Regarding Claim 9, Yamazaki discloses (Figure 1) at least one second quota of said plurality of distribution channels comprises distribution channels (cooling medium ejection holes 55) that have respective openings facing a wall of said die (metal plate 71p forming the bottom surface of die 5) containing said impression (molding surface 31) in portions of said wall, which are outside said impression (cooling medium ejection holes 55 have openings that face the bottom surface of die 5 outside of molding surface 31).
Regarding Claim 10, Yamazaki discloses (Figure 3) said mould holder (metal plate 71a) and/or said die (metal plates 71b-p) comprise, at said recess (recess formed by cooling medium supply path 45) and, respectively, at said wall facing said recess, at least one step (step formed at rightmost end of recess clearly seen in figure).
Regarding Claim 11, Yamazaki discloses (Figure 1) both said first half-mould (die 5) and said second half-mould (assembly of punch 3 and blank holder 7) are provided with said at least one feeding channel (cooling medium introduction paths 47/21/59) for the lubricating-cooling liquid, with said plurality of distribution channels (cooling medium supplying paths 45/19/57 and cooling medium ejection holes 41/43/17/18/55) for the lubricating-cooling liquid and with said at least one gap (gap formed by cooling medium supply path 45 between metal plates 71a and 71b, and gap formed by groove 95 between metal plates 91d and 91c).
Regarding Claim 12, Yamazaki discloses (Figure 1) a hot forging process comprising the steps of: providing a mould (mold 1) according to any one of the preceding claims (see discussions above); feeding, under pressure, a lubricating-cooling liquid into said at least one feeding channel ([0040] lns 10-11: the openings of the cooling medium ejection holes on the molding surface 9 are configured such that the cooling medium will be under pressure in the cooling medium ejection holes 17, cooling medium supplying paths 19, and cooling medium introduction path 21); feeding a preheated billet (metal material 13) into said first half-mould or said second half-mould ([0027] lns 3-5); closing said mould by applying a pre-set pressure to said first half-mould and/or to said second half-mould (closed mold 1 shown in Figure 1; Yamazaki is silent to a pre-set pressure, however an applied pressure on either the die 5 or punch 3 is inherently required in order to close the mold with the metal material inside, so this limitation is considered to be met); and cooling said mould ([0017] lns 1-3). Yamazaki is silent to steps of opening said mould and ejecting a forged semi-finished product obtained from said billet. However, as the purpose of the disclosed mould is to form products and not hold them indefinitely, opening the mould and ejecting a forged semi-finished product obtained from the billet will inherently be part of the disclosed process, so these limitations are considered to be met.
Regarding Claim 13, Yamazaki discloses (Figure 1) during the process, said distribution channels (cooling medium supplying paths 45/19/57 and cooling medium ejection holes 41/43/17/18/55) are substantially and constantly filled with said lubricating-cooling liquid ([0040] ln 11: the cooling medium being under pressure implies that the cooling medium supplying paths and ejection holes are “substantially” filled with the cooling medium; [0026] lns 1-3: the temperature rise of the mold is suppressed by the cooling medium in the cooling medium supplying paths, implying that they are “constantly” filled with the cooling medium).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (JP 2009297741) as applied to Claim 12 above, and further in view of Robertson (US 493,897).
Regarding Claim 14, Yamazaki is silent to the process of ejecting the semi-finished product from the mould. In the same field of endeavor, Robertson teaches (Figure 1) a hot forging process comprising the steps of: providing a mould (assembly of die A’, container A2, and holder A3); feeding, under pressure, a lubricating-cooling fluid into at least one feeding channel (conduit C3; pg. 1 lns 90-93); feeding a preheated billet (billet B; pg. 1 lns 59-62) into a first or second half-mould (half dies A’); and ejecting a forged semi-finished product obtained from said billet (pg. 2 lns 9-10), wherein said step of ejecting said semi-finished product is carried out by increasing the pressure of said lubricating-cooling liquid (pg. 2 lns 91-98). As this is a known method for ejecting a forged semi-finished product from a mould comprising feeding/distribution channels for a lubricating-cooling liquid, 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 hot forging process disclosed by Yamazaki such that the step of ejecting said semi-finished product is carried out by increasing the pressure of said lubricating-cooling fluid, as taught by Robertson, in order to eject the semi-finished product from the mould.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iwano et al. (US 10,434,559), Hielscher et al. (US 8,707,751), Fukuchi et al. (US 9,433,989), Gonzalez et al. (WO 2010/061007), and Fukuchi et al. (WO 2015/037657) all disclose moulds comprising dies having varying configurations of feeding and distribution channels for lubricating-cooling fluid which is distributed on the forming surfaces of the dies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA A GUTHRIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5042. The examiner can normally be reached M/Tu/Th, 10-6 ET.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/TERESA A GUTHRIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725