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 .
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 1-2 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2021/0154615 A1) in view of Kobayashi (JP 2012-126931).
Suzuki et al. disclose a dust solidification apparatus, comprising:
a storage tank 3 for storing dust;
a forming member 5 that is disposed at a lower portion of the storage tank, the forming member being provided with a forming hole 4 to allow the dust in the storage tank to flow in; and
a first pressurizing rod 6 and a second closing rod 7 opposed to each other, wherein the first rod and the second rod are driven to reciprocate by advancing into and withdrawing from the forming hole 4 to solidify the dust D in the forming hole 4 obtaining a solidified substance K,
wherein each of the first pressurizing rod 6 and the second closing rod 7 comprises a rod tip and a rod base, and an axially vertical cross-section of the rod tip of the first rod is larger than an axially vertical cross-section of the rod base of the first rod and is smaller than an axially vertical cross-section of the forming hole 4, in order for the rods 6, 7 to slide into the forming hole 4, K – as copied below for comparation:
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Larger rod tip)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Smaller rod base)]
PNG
media_image1.png
373
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
410
798
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Suzuki et al. Current application
However, Suzuki et al. fails to disclose an outer perimeter of the rod tip includes grooves that are extend oblique to the longitudinal direction of the rod and that the grooves are configured to grind dust adhered to an inner wall of the forming hole and to discharge the dust that is ground.
Kobayashi discloses a powder pressing apparatus, comprising a die 1 connect to a through hole 2 that a first and second punches 11a-b are sliding through, wherein the punches 11a-b include a plurality of grooves 25, 30, and 40 on the entire outer periphery of the punches 11a-b/12a, wherein the grooves 25, 30, and 40 have different sizes, shapes and are located at different positions along the insertion portion 12a of the punch (Fig. 1-6) for collecting power adhering to the inner periphery of the through hole 2 to reduce friction between the outer periphery of the insertion portion 12a and the inner surface of the through hole 2 (pg 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Suzuki’s punch, including the outer peripheral of the rod tip with a plurality of grooves on the outer surface as taught by Kobayashi in order to collect the powder material sticking on the inner surface of the through hole so that the friction between the outer periphery of the punch and the through hole can be reduced. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide additional grooves on the tip of the pressuring rod in order to allow the pressurizing rod and the pressurizing rod head to remove and collect the powder material from the forming hole wall, since the tip of the punch is larger than the body of the punch and has closer contact with the forming hole wall.
Regarding to the limitation that the grooves are configured to grind dust adhered to an inner wall of the forming hold and to discharge the dust that is ground, the current specification discloses that: “enlarging the pressurizing rod tip 1231 of the pressurizing rod 123 with respect to the pressurizing rod base 1232 makes it possible to grind the dust 200 adhered to the inner wall 1223 of the forming hole 122.” See current specification, [0028]. Similarly, Kobayashi discloses that the pressurizing rod tip 13a is enlarged compared to the pressuring rod base 12a, the close contact between the outer surface of the pressurizing rod and the inner surface of the forming hole would inherently grind the dust adhered to the inner wall of the forming hole as the pressurizing rod moving through the forming hole.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the current specification discloses that “grooves are provided on the outer perimeters of the rod tips of the first rod and/or the second rod. Consequently, the dust adhering to the inner wall of the forming hole and the ground dust is discharged from the groove.” Thus, the orientation and/or location of the grooves on the rod would only change the location where the dust is scraped of from the inner surface of the forming hole. Kobayashi discloses that the gap between the outer periphery of the pressurizing rod and the inner surface of the forming hole is about 5-100mm, so any dust particles bigger than these sizes would be ground and collected. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice since relocation of the grooves would not have modified the operation of the pressurizing rod and the forming hole.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2021/0154615 A1) in view of Kobayashi (JP 2012-126931) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Thielges et al. (10,265,756).
Regarding claims 3-4, Suzuki et al. fails to disclose that the rod tip is detachable from the rod base.
Thielges et al. discloses a punch assembly with a punch assembly 10 having a removable head portion 148 connected with a shank 128 via a head 146.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Suzuki et al. with detachable rod tip as taught by Thielges et al. so that the tip of the rod can be replaced upon wear and tear without the whole rod or that the tip of the rod can be exchange for tips of different size/shape depending on the desired forming product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Kobayashi only disclosed that the flat surface 30a of the groove 30 scrap dust off the large-diameter portion 2a, and fails to disclose grooves are configured to grind dust adhered to an inner wall of the forming hole.
The current application discloses that “enlarging the pressurizing rod tip 1231 of the pressurizing rod 123 with respect to the pressurizing rod base 1232 makes it possible to grind the dust 200 adhered to the inner wall 1223 of the forming hole 122.” See current specification, [0028]. Similarly, Kobayashi also discloses that the pressurizing rod tip is also enlarged and would inherently be able to grind the dust in the same manner.
Further, Kobayashi discloses that a gap between the curved surface portion 31 and the inner periphery of the large diameter portion 2a of the die is 5-100m – see Remark, page 5, 4th paragraph, so any dust particles bigger than these sizes would be ground and collected as the pressuring rod is moving in and out of the forming hole. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice since relocation of the grooves would not have modified the operation of the pressurizing rod and the forming hole and the ability to grind bigger dust particles and collect the dust into the grooves.
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 Thu-Khanh T. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/Thu Khanh T. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights