DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claim 9 is cancelled.
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn.
Claim 21 is newly added claim.
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 16-21 are rejected.
In view of the amendment, filed on 12/23/2025, the following objections / rejections are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on 10/01/2025.
Objection to claim 1
Rejection of claims 1-12 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) / (a)(2) as being anticipated by Guenther et al. (DE 2446959)
New Grounds of the Rejections
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-12 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenther et al. (DE 2446959), the prior art submitted by applicant and the following rejection corresponds to the English translation of the prior art.
Guenther et al. (DE ‘959) discloses, as to claim 1, a molded tube unit (press frame 1, ¶ [0012]) for forming an irregularly shaped piece of product made of an elastic material into a mold having a uniform cross-section along its length (p. 1, 1st paragraph), with: a base body (bearing block 2, ¶ [0012]), a forming tube (Fig. 1) having a forming cavity (the profile opening 10, ¶ [0013]) of variable cross section open from one end face, i.e. in the longitudinal direction, to an opposite end face in a longitudinal direction, comprising: longitudinal walls (four pressing tools 9, ¶ [0013]) which adjoin one another in a circumferential direction and surround the forming cavity (10) circumferentially, the longitudinal walls (four pressing tools 9) being movable relative to one another in a transverse direction to the longitudinal direction of the forming tube (p. 5, last paragraph, p. 6, 1st paragraph), and an actuating element (11) for moving the longitudinal walls (9), wherein all longitudinal walls (9) are movably arranged with respect to the base body (bearing block 2, ¶ [0012]) (p. 5, last paragraph, p. 6, 1st paragraph; Fig. 1).
[AltContent: textbox (A molded tube unit (1))][AltContent: textbox (A base body (2))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Longitudinal walls (9) )][AltContent: textbox (A forming cavity (10))][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
596
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, Guenther et al. (DE ‘959) disclose the actuating elements (11) each comprises a set of actuating linking elements (5, 6) surrounding the forming tube (Fig. 1) and the linking elements (5, 6) have an angular movement in relevant to a longitudinally center line of the forming tube (Fig. 1) relative to the base body (bearing block 2, ¶ [0012]). See Fig. 1. However, Guenther et al. (DE ‘959) is silent on disclosing the actuating linking elements (5, 6) are ring shaped and the actuating linking elements have a rotational movement instead of an angular movement, as claimed in claim 1. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to modify the actuating linking elements (5, 6), as taught by Guenther et al. (DE ‘959), so to have a ring-shaped and a rotational movement in order to more effectively distribute the applied force by the actuating linking elements. Further, it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not Significant to the function of the combination. See MPEP 2144.04, IV, (B).
As to claim 2, Guenther et al. (DE ‘959) discloses the base body (1), viewed in the longitudinal direction, is a base body ring surrounding the forming tube (Fig. 1), and/or the forming cavity is rotatable about a longitudinal center line during relative movement of the longitudinal walls (four pressing tools 9) with respect to one another.
As to claim 3, Guenther et al. (DE ‘959) teaches the longitudinal walls (four pressing tools 9) comprise two longitudinal walls (9) adjacent in the circumferential direction that are guidable against one another along a wall guide running in a transverse direction. (p. 3, 3rd paragraph; p. 6, 3rd paragraph)
As to claim 4, Guenther et al. (DE ‘959) discloses at least one of the longitudinal walls (four pressing tools 9) is attached to the base body so as to be pivotable about a first pivot axis (7, ¶ [0012]) extending in the longitudinal direction. (Fig. 1)
As to claim 5, Guenther et al. (DE ‘959) teach at least one of the longitudinal walls (9) is pivotally attached to the base body (1) so as to be pivotable about a first pivot axis (joint 7, ¶ [0012]) extending in the longitudinal direction and is additionally pivotally attached to a pivot lever (a linkage 5, ¶ [0012]) about a second pivot axis (joint 8, ¶ [0012]) extending in the longitudinal direction and spaced from the first pivot axis (7), each pivot lever is pivotably attached to the actuating element (the pressure medium cylinders 11, ¶ [0015]) about a base pivot axis extending in the longitudinal direction, and the actuating element (11) is movable relative to the base body. (p. 5, last paragraph, p. 6, 1st paragraph; Fig. 1)
As to claim 6, Guenther et al. (DE ‘959) disclose each of the longitudinal walls (9) is attached to the actuating element (11) via a pivot lever (6) that is pivotable about a second pivot axis (a joint 8), and at least one of the second pivot axes (8) and the first pivot axis (a joint 7) is movable transversely to the longitudinal direction.
As to claim 7, Guenther et al. (DE ‘959) teach multiple pivot levers (6, 7) that are each pivotably attached to the actuating element (11) about a respective base pivot axis extending in the longitudinal direction, wherein each of the longitudinal walls (9) is pivotally attached to the base body about a respective first pivot axis extending in the longitudinal direction, and each of the longitudinal walls (9) is additionally pivotally attached to a respective one of the pivot levers (5, 6) about a respective second pivot axis (joint 8, ¶ [0012]) extending in the longitudinal direction and spaced from the respective first pivot axis (joint 7, ¶ [0012]), and the actuating element (11) is movable relative to the base body.
As to claim 8, Guenther et al. (DE ‘959) disclose the first pivot axes (joint 7) are arranged on a first pivot axis circle when viewed axially and/or the second pivot axes (joint 8) are arranged on a second pivot axis circle when viewed axially.
As to claim 9, Guenther et al. (DE ‘959) teach the actuating element (11) comprises an actuating ring surrounding the forming tube (Fig. 1), and the actuating ring is rotatable about a longitudinal center line of the forming tube relative to the base body (1).
As to claim 10, Guenther et al. (DE ‘959) disclose the actuating element (11) is operatively connected to a control element which can be driven in a controlled manner, and the control element is movable in a transverse direction to the longitudinal direction, to adjust the actuating element.
As to claim 11, Guenther et al. (DE ‘959) teach at least one of the longitudinal walls (9) is guided so as to be movable linearly with respect to the base body in a transverse direction to the longitudinal direction.
As to claim 12, Guenther et al. (DE ‘959) disclose each two adjacent longitudinal walls (9) are guided against each other along a wall guide extending in a transverse direction.
As to claim 16, Guenther et al. (DE ‘959) teach the base body ring comprises a base body circular ring that is configured to concentrically surround the forming tube.
As to claim 17, Guenther et al. (DE ‘959) disclose the wall guide comprises two guide parts that are guidable against one another and can be moved relative to one another only in a running direction of the wall guide but cannot be moved away from one another in a longitudinal region of the wall guide transversely to the wall guide.
As to claim 18, Guenther et al. (DE ‘959) teach the two guide parts comprise an undercut guide groove and a sliding block displaceable therein.
As to claim 19, Guenther et al. (DE ‘959) disclose the longitudinal walls comprise an even number of longitudinal walls (four pressing tools 9, ¶ [0013]), and every second longitudinal wall (9) is fastened to the base body (bearing block 2, ¶ [0012]) so as to be pivotable about a first pivot axis (joint 7) running in the longitudinal direction.
As to claim 20, Guenther et al. (DE ‘959) teach the forming tube unit (press frame 1, ¶ [0012]) comprises four first pivot axes (joints 7) that form a rectangle when viewed axially.
As to claim 21, Guenther et al. (DE ‘959) discloses the actuating linking elements (5, 6) concentrically surround the forming tube (Fig. 1) and the actuating linking elements (5, 6) is rotatable about a longitudinal center line of the forming tube (Fig. 1) relative to the base body ring (Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of claim(s) 1-12 and 16-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the above new grounds of the rejections.
Applicant argues that the newly added limitation to claim 1 is not disclosed in Guenther. However, applicant’s argument is not found persuasive in view of the above new grounds of the rejections. As indicated, in above new grounds of the rejections, Guenther et al. (DE ‘959) disclose the actuating elements (11) each comprises a set of actuating linking elements (5, 6) surrounding the forming tube (Fig. 1) and the linking elements (5, 6) have an angular movement in relevant to a longitudinally center line of the forming tube (Fig. 1) relative to the base body (bearing block 2, ¶ [0012]). See Fig. 1. Even though Guenther et al. (DE ‘959) is silent on disclosing the actuating linking elements (5, 6) are ring shaped and the actuating linking elements have a rotational movement instead of an angular movement, as claimed in claim 1. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to modify the actuating linking elements (5, 6), as taught by Guenther et al. (DE ‘959), so to have a ring-shaped and a rotational movement in order to more effectively distribute the applied force by the actuating linking elements. Further, it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not Significant to the function of the combination. See MPEP 2144.04, IV, (B).
Further, Applicant’s arguments regarding previous restriction requirement between claims 1 and 13 was fully considered and was not found persuasive for the reasons provided in the previous office action. As it has been clarified in the previous office action, the sub-combination II, claim 13, has separate utility, other than to be used with the claimed forming unit in claim 1. For instance, the sub-combination, as claimed in claim 13, can be used with an extrusion head according to MPEP § 806.05(d).
Further, Applicant’s arguments regarding previous restriction requirement between claims 1 and 14 was fully considered and was not found persuasive for the reasons provided in the previous office action. This is not found persuasive because the claimed subject matter of claims 1 and 14 do not necessarily overlap in their scope as the process, as claimed in claim 14, can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus, other than the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, for instance, an apparatus which does not necessarily require “an actuating element” for displacing the longitudinal walls for forming the product piece and further does not necessarily require for all the longitudinal walls to be “movably arranged with respect to the base body”, as required by claim 1.
Finally, after a full review of the submitted remarks in view of rejections of the claims over the prior art, it has been concluded that there are differences in interpreting the claimed subject matter and the cited references between the Applicant and the Office. Therefore, Examiner would like to suggest that if Applicant’s Counsel believes that an interview can benefit the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant’s Counsel is kindly invited to contact the undersigned examiner.
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 SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-6215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, SUSAN D. LEONG can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1754
04/04/2026
Prosecution Insights