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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one die driving mechanism” in claims 7 and 8; “exit tensioning device” in claims 7 and 8; and “entry back tensioning device” in claim 8.
With respect to the die driving mechanism, this phrase includes a generic placeholder (“at least one die driving mechanism”) and a function (provide or translate “a transverse translational motion”) without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as the eccentric shaft 44 and connecting rod 46 (Figs. 2-3 and Para. [0054]) and equivalents thereof.
The entry and exit tensioning device claim limitations each recite a generic placeholder (“entry tensioning device” or “exit tensioning device”) and a function (“grip a specimen” and “maintain a constant tension on the specimen”) without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as the tensioning devices 126 and 128 shown in Figs. 24-27 which include a clamping mechanism 142, a hydraulic cylinder 140 for actuating the clamping mechanism and an actuator 146 for moving the clamping mechanism (Figs. 24-27 and Paras. [0067]-[0069]) and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 7 and 8 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 7 and 8, each of these claims are directed to “[a] method for cross sectional reducing and straightening a specimen” including the step of “advancing a specimen under tension through a plurality of die segments” followed by features of the die apparatus, i.e., there are no other method steps. It is unclear if advancing the specimen through a plurality of die segments on its own is sufficient to reduce and straighten the specimen or if further steps are required, e.g., the die segments moving in a reciprocating motion. Based off the features of the die recited and in view of the specification, it appears that steps beyond the advancing step are required to reduce and straighten the specimen. For the purposes of examination, these claims will be interpreted as advancing a specimen through a plurality of die segments with the recited structure and a step of the die segments reducing and straightening the specimen. The claims also include antecedent basis issues because the preamble recites “a specimen” and “a specimen” is repeated later in the body of the claims, thus it is unclear if these are the same or different specimens. For the purpose of examination, the specimens will be interpreted as the same specimen.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 2, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,229,963 to Savinov.
Regarding claim 1, Savinov teaches a method of shaping a specimen (Col. 1, Lns. 6-13) comprising;
a) providing at least one pair of reciprocating dies 2 (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, Lns. 12-39; the dies are moved in a reciprocating motion),
b) advancing the specimen under tension through a space between the reciprocating dies (Col. 6, Lns. 13-21; the workpiece is handled, which would provide some level of tension on it, while it is moved lengthwise through the space between the dies), and
c) impacting at least two surfaces of the specimen with the reciprocating dies to shape the specimen (Figs. 1-4; Col. 6, Ln. 51 through Col. 7, Ln. 11).
Regarding claim 2, Savinov teaches the method of claim 1 (Figs. 1-4) wherein the dies 2 travel a distance less than an amount of a reduction in size of the specimen in a given pass through the dies 2 (Figs. 1-4; Col. 6, Lns. 13-21; it is noted that this claim does not specify in which manner the travel is occurring and therefore the travel is interpreted as the movement in the lengthwise direction of the workpiece, which Savinov teaches the workpiece travels in the lengthwise direction which the dies remain in a fixed position relative to that direction).
Regarding claim 4, Savinov teaches the method of claim 1 (Figs. 1-4) wherein the dies 2 have a contact surface comprising two or more surfaces that intersect each other (Figs. 1 and 3 show that the dies 2 include a concave central surface with slanting side surfaces on either side of the concave center, and the side surfaces with the curved central surface form two or more intersecting surfaces).
Regarding claim 6, Savinov teaches the method of claim 1 (Figs. 1-4) wherein the final shape of the specimen is determined by the configuration of the contact surfaces of the dies and gaps between the dies (Figs. 1-4; Col. 6, Ln. 51 through Col. 7, Ln. 11; the surfaces of the die determine the shape of the workpiece after it has been impacted by the dies).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savinov in view of US 4,899,570 to Mills.
Regarding claim 3, Savinov teaches the method of claim 1 (Figs. 1-4) wherein the dies 2 travel a distance greater than an amount of a reduction in size of the specimen in a given pass through the dies 2 (Figs. 1-4; Col. 6, Ln. 51 through Col. 7, Ln. 11; the dies 2 travel in a reciprocating motion and therefore move toward the workpiece to reduce size and then away from workpiece afterwards, thus the dies greater than the reduction size by traveling away after the reduction).
Savinov fails to explicitly teach the step of grasping the segment on an entry side of the reciprocation dies whereby tension is maintained. Savinov teaches that the workpiece is handled while it is being moved lengthwise through the dies (Col. 6, Lns. 13-21), but is silent regarding how the workpiece is handled.
Mills teaches a method for cross sectional reducing and straightening a specimen (Abstract; Fig. 1) including a plurality of die segments 12A-D (Fig. 3) and the step of grasping the segment on an entry side of the reciprocation dies whereby tension is maintained (Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 33-52; gripper 22 grasps the workpiece on an entry side of the dies which would maintain the tension).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Savinov to include the gripping the workpiece on an entry side of the dies as taught by Mills so that as the workpiece is being controlled and moved through the dies the orientation and movement of the workpiece may be precisely controlled.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savinov in view of US 3,014,273 to Appel.
Regarding claim 5, Savinov teaches the method of claim 1 (Figs. 1-4).
Savinov fails to explicitly teach the cycle time of the reciprocating dies and the travel speed of the specimen is selected based upon the material of the metal segment.
Appel teaches a method for cross sectional reducing and straightening a specimen (Col. 1, Lns. 9-17; Fig. 1) including a plurality of reciprocating die segments 11 (Col. 2, Lns. 17-39) and advancing a workpiece through the die segments (Col. 2, Lns. 52-61) wherein the cycle time of the reciprocating dies 11 and the travel speed of the specimen is selected based upon the material of the metal segment (Col. 8, Ln. 9 through Col. 9, Ln. 7; the time that the dies are in each phase of the forming and the feed rate, i.e., travel speed, of the workpiece are determined based on the hardness of the material).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Savinov to include modifying the parameters of the feed rate and die cycles based on the material as taught by Appel so that each workpiece is formed under the optimal conditions for the material it is made from.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savinov in view of Mills in further view of DE 10 2017 214961 A1 to Busch.
Regarding claim 7, Savinov teaches a method for cross sectional reducing and straightening a specimen (Col. 1, Lns. 6-13) comprising:
advancing a specimen under tension through a plurality of die segments (Col. 6, Lns. 13-21; the workpiece is handled, which would provide some level of tension on it, while it is moved lengthwise through the space between the dies);
wherein each die segment has a contact face (Figs. 1-4, Col. 4, Lns. 13-39);
at least one of the die segments wherein the contact face has at least two planar surfaces that intersect to form a convex feature (Fig. 4 shows that the side profile of the contact surface of the die segment includes two planar surfaces that intersect to form a cross-sectional convex feature);
the plurality of die segments configured such that the contact face of each die segment is opposed by the contact face of at least one other die segment to form at least one set of opposing die segments (Figs. 1-4);
at least one die gap determined by the distance between the contact faces of the at least one set of opposing die segments 2 (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, Lns. 31-52; each of the die segments 2 move towards and away from the workpiece to define a gap between the faces of the opposing die segments);
at least one die driving mechanism 8, 10 providing translational motion to at least one die segment 2, the translation motion being directed toward the opposing die segment 2 (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, Lns. 40-64);
the die driving mechanism configured to provide reciprocating translational motion to at least one die segment and synchronous reciprocating motion to the plurality of die segments, whereby the at least one die gap opens and closes (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, Lns. 20-27 and 31-52; the driving mechanisms 8, 10 are connected to a common drive 3 such that each driving mechanism 8, 10 moves a die segment 2 and the die segments 2 are moved synchronously via the common drive 3); and,
the reciprocating transitional motion of the opposing die segments being less than the predetermined reduction (Figs. 1-4; it is noted that this claim element is directed to a feature of the apparatus and does not recite a method step, and the apparatus is capable of providing the reciprocating translational motion that is less than the predetermined reduction because the predetermined reduction is dependent on the workpiece provided to the apparatus, i.e., the predetermined reduction may be very large),
the continuous tension being insufficient to provide the translational motion to the specimen during the compression phase (Figs. 1-4; it is noted that this claim element is directed to a feature of the apparatus and does not recite a method step, and the apparatus is capable of having the tension and compression force be configured such that the workpiece does not have translational motion during the compression phase);
whereby the specimen will be reduced, stretch straightened, elongated, and have enhanced mechanical properties (Col. 3, 12-24 and Col. 4, Lns. 53-64; the workpiece has its cross-section reduced while also being straightened and elongated, which would enhance the mechanical properties of the of the workpiece).
Savinov fails to explicitly teach the plurality of die segments configured such that the geometry of the plurality of die segments is not restricted to converge on a radial center and wherein the tension is provided by an exit tensioning device configured to grip a specimen and maintain a continuous tension on the specimen causing the specimen to move with a translational motion through the at least one die gap and cross sectionally reducing the specimen by a predetermined reduction.
Busch teaches an apparatus for cross sectional reducing and straightening a specimen (Abstract) including a plurality of die segments 3 (Figs. 2-3) and the plurality of die segments configured such that the axis of motion of the plurality of die segments is not constrained to converge on a radial center (Figs. 2-4; Paras [0028]-[0029]; the position of the die segments 3 may be adjusted via a gear 5 and spindle 6 such that the path of movement, i.e., the axis of motion, of each die segment may be adjusted to a different plane so that the die segment moves towards a different area in the radial center, i.e., the die segments may be adjusted so that each of their paths of movement converges to a different location in the center).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus for straightening of Savinov to include the die segment adjusting mechanism of Busch so that adjustments to the position and path of movement of the die segments may be performed without having to change the tools or other components of the apparatus (Busch, Para. [0026]).
Mills teaches an apparatus for cross sectional reducing and straightening a specimen (Abstract; Fig. 1) including a plurality of die segments 12A-D (Fig. 3) and an exit tensioning device 22 (Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 33-52); wherein the exit tensioning device 22 is configured to grip a specimen and maintain a continuous tension on the specimen causing the specimen to move with a translational motion through the at least one die gap and cross sectionally reducing the specimen by a predetermined reduction (Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 33-52; the motor driven means 23 of the tensioning device make it configured to, i.e., capable of, maintain a continuous tension of the workpiece as it moves through the dies), the continuous tension being insufficient to provide the translational motion to the specimen during the compression phase (Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 33-52; it is noted that this is an apparatus claim, and therefore this element is interpreted as the exit tensioning device is capable of providing a continuous tension that is insufficient, which the tensioning device in Mills is capable of doing via the motor reducing the tension by the jaw).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and die apparatus of Savinov to include the exit tensioning device as taught by Mills so that as the workpiece is being controlled and moved through the dies the orientation and movement of the workpiece may be precisely controlled.
Regarding claim 8, Savinov teaches a method for cross sectional reducing and straightening a specimen (Figs. 1-4) comprising:
advancing a specimen under tension through a plurality of die segments 2 (Col. 6, Lns. 13-21; the workpiece is handled, which would provide some level of tension on it, while it is moved lengthwise through the space between the dies);
wherein each die segment 2 has a contact face (Figs. 1-4);
at least one of the die segments wherein the contact face has at least two planar surfaces that intersect to form a convex feature (Fig. 4 shows that the side profile of the contact surface of the die segment includes two planar surfaces that intersect to form a cross-sectional convex feature);
the plurality of die segments 2 configured such that the contact face of each die segment 2 is opposed by the contact face of at least one other die segment 2 to form at least one set of opposing die segments 2 (Fig. 3);
at least one die gap determined by the distance between the contact faces of the at least one set of opposing die segments 2 (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, Lns. 31-52; each of the die segments 2 move towards and away from the workpiece to define a gap between the faces of the opposing die segments);
at least one die driving mechanism 8, 10 providing translational motion to at least one die segment 2, the translation motion being directed toward the opposing die segment 2 (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, Lns. 40-64);
the die driving mechanism configured to provide reciprocating translational motion to at least one die segment and synchronous reciprocating motion to the plurality of die segments, whereby the at least one die gap opens and closes (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, Lns. 20-27 and 31-52; the driving mechanisms 8, 10 are connected to a common drive 3 such that each driving mechanism 8, 10 moves a die segment 2 and the die segments 2 are moved synchronously via the common drive 3);
cross sectionally reduce the specimen by a predetermined reduction, the reciprocating translational motion of the opposing die segments being less than or greater than the predetermined reduction, and the tension being insufficient to provide the translational motion to the specimen during the compression phase (Figs. 1-4; it is noted that this claim element is directed to a feature of the apparatus and does not recite a method step, and the apparatus is capable of providing the reciprocating translational motion that is less than the predetermined reduction because the predetermined reduction is dependent on the workpiece provided to the apparatus, i.e., the predetermined reduction may be very large);
whereby the specimen will be reduced, stretch straightened, elongated, and have enhanced mechanical properties (Col. 3, 12-24 and Col. 4, Lns. 53-64; the workpiece has its cross-section reduced while also being straightened and elongated, which would enhance the mechanical properties of the of the workpiece).
Savinov fails to explicitly teach the plurality of die segments configured such that the geometry of the plurality of die segments is not restricted to converge on a radial center and wherein the tension is provided by an exit tensioning device and an entry back tensioning device, the exit tensioning device is configured to grip a specimen and the entry back tensioning device is configured to grip the specimen opposite to the exit tensioning device, the exit tensioning device and the entry back tensioning device further configured to maintain constant tension on the specimen, cause the specimen to move with a translational motion through the at least one die gap.
Busch teaches an apparatus for cross sectional reducing and straightening a specimen (Abstract) including a plurality of die segments 3 (Figs. 2-3) and the plurality of die segments configured such that the axis of motion of the plurality of die segments is not constrained to converge on a radial center (Figs. 2-4; Paras [0028]-[0029]; the position of the die segments 3 may be adjusted via a gear 5 and spindle 6 such that the path of movement, i.e., the axis of motion, of each die segment may be adjusted to a different plane so that the die segment moves towards a different area in the radial center, i.e., the die segments may be adjusted so that each of their paths of movement converges to a different location in the center).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus for straightening of Savinov to include the die segment adjusting mechanism of Busch so that adjustments to the position and path of movement of the die segments may be performed without having to change the tools or other components of the apparatus (Busch, Para. [0026]).
Mills teaches an apparatus for cross sectional reducing and straightening a specimen (Abstract; Fig. 1) including a plurality of die segments 12A-D (Fig. 3), an exit tensioning device 22 (Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 33-52) and an the entry back tensioning device 22 configured to grip the specimen opposite to the exit tensioning device (Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 33-52); wherein the exit tensioning device and the entry back tensioning device further configured to maintain constant tension on the specimen, cause the specimen to move with a translational motion through the at least one die gap (Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3, Lns. 33-52; the motor driven means 23 of the tensioning device make it configured to, i.e., capable of, maintain a continuous tension of the workpiece as it moves through the dies).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and die apparatus of Savinov to include the exit tensioning device as taught by Mills so that as the workpiece is being controlled and moved through the dies the orientation and movement of the workpiece may be precisely controlled.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2,863,342 A teaches a method for reducing a workpiece via a die set including opposed dies moving in a reciprocating motion (Figs. 1-2; Col. 1, Lns. 15-39).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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, Chris 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.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725