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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/06/2018 with respect to the prior art of Denison (US20140102159A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that the prior art of Denison does not disclose the new limitation of “during extrusion; and at the exit 81 (where the annular extrusion aperture is effectively defined), the surrounding mandrel geometry is the closed end 51, which has a fixed single diameter (Denison, [0066]; FIG. 12). Thus, even if a person having skill in the art were to introduce longitudinal movement of Denison's mandrel tip during extrusion (which is not taught by Denison), such movement would still fail to introduce a different lateral outer dimension into registration with the die exit in a manner that varies the inner boundary of an extrusion aperture; rather, any such movement would disrupt the fixed geometric relationship that Denison specifically teaches must be maintained for extrusion”.
In response to this argument, and regrading the Applicant’s argument of “At the exit 81 (where the annular extrusion aperture is effectively defined), the surrounding mandrel geometry is the closed end 51, which has a fixed single diameter (Denison, [0066]; FIG. 12)”; it is not understand how the closed end 51 of the mandrel (10) can prevent the movement of the mandrel;
Further, the prior art of Denison explicitly and clearly discloses a mandrel (figs.1 and 11-13: (10)) that forms an extrusion aperture (fig.13: the aperture of the element (17) having the inner diameter) when extended through the die face orifice (paragraphs 0065-0066); and
the prior art of Denison explicitly and clearly discloses the mandrel is adjusted during operation (paragraph 0040: although it will be understood that in certain embodiments the mandrel bar 74 and/or mandrel carriage section 58 may be adjusted during operation); and
the prior art of Denison explicitly and clearly discloses the mandrel (figs.1 and 11-13: (10)) including a lateral outer dimension (figs.1 and 11-13: (83)) that varies along a longitudinal direction;
and since the prior art of Denison discloses the mandrel is adjusted during operation; and the mandrel (figs.1 and 11-13: (10)) including a lateral outer dimension (figs.1 and 11-13: (83)) that varies along a longitudinal direction;
thus, the prior art of Denison discloses the mandrel including a lateral outer dimension (figs.1 and 11-13: (83)) that varies along a longitudinal direction to vary an inner boundary of the extrusion aperture in response to movement, during extrusion, of the mandrel with respect to the die tool along the central longitudinal axis (paragraphs 0040, 0045 and 0066-0070).
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
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, 4-14 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Denison (US20140102159A1).
Regarding claim 1, Denison discloses a system (abstract and paragraphs 0032-0068), comprising:
a die tool (figs.1 and 13: (18)), comprising a die face defining a die face orifice (figs.1 and 10: (11)) and a central longitudinal axis (figs.10 and 12: (45)) extending through the die face orifice, the die tool configured to have relative rotational motion about the central longitudinal axis to engage with a billet (fig.13: (17)) (paragraphs 0045 and 0067-0068); and
a mandrel (figs.1 and 11-13: (10)) that forms an extrusion aperture (fig.13: the aperture of the element (17) having the inner diameter) when extended through the die face orifice (paragraphs 0065-0066),
the mandrel including a lateral outer dimension (figs.1 and 11-13: (83)) that varies along a longitudinal direction to vary an inner boundary of the extrusion aperture in response to movement of the mandrel, during extrusion, with respect to the die tool along the central longitudinal axis (paragraphs 0040, 0045 and 0066-0070).
Claims 1-2, 4-14 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Denison (US20140102159A1).
Regarding claim 1, Denison discloses a system (abstract and paragraphs 0032-0068), comprising:
a die tool (figs.1 and 13: (18)), comprising a die face defining a die face orifice (figs.1 and 10: (11)) and a central longitudinal axis (figs.10 and 12: (45)) extending through the die face orifice, the die tool configured to have relative rotational motion about the central longitudinal axis to engage with a billet (fig.13: (17)) (paragraphs 0045 and 0067-0068); and
a mandrel (figs.1 and 11-13: (10)) that forms an extrusion aperture (fig.13: the aperture of the element (17) having the inner diameter) when extended through the die face orifice (paragraphs 0065-0066),
the mandrel including a lateral outer dimension (figs.1 and 11-13: (83)) that varies along a longitudinal direction to vary an inner boundary of the extrusion aperture in response to movement of the mandrel with respect to the die tool along the central longitudinal axis (paragraphs 0040, 0045 and 0066-0070)
.
Regarding claim 2, Denison discloses wherein the mandrel is prevented from rotating about the central longitudinal axis while moving linearly along the central longitudinal axis (paragraph 0035-0036 and 0067).
Regarding claim 4, Denison discloses wherein the mandrel is tapered to have a smaller lateral profile toward a tip of the mandrel that extends distally into the die face orifice than a lateral profile of a more proximal portion of the mandrel (paragraphs 0066 and 0069; figs.1 and 11-13).
Regarding claim 5, Denison discloses wherein the die tool and the mandrel are configured to extrude a first portion of an extrudate through the extrusion aperture in response to the mandrel being at a first position that correlates with a first extrusion aperture dimension (paragraphs 0066 and 0069; figs.1 and 11-13).
Regarding claim 6, Denison discloses, comprising a rotation prevention component and the rotation prevention component is a bushing engaged with the mandrel to prevent the mandrel from rotating (fig.2: (62) and 63)); paragraph 0034-0036 and 0067).
Regarding claim 7, Denison discloses wherein the mandrel comprises a first portion of the mandrel and a second tapering portion with a diameter that tapers from a first diameter of a first portion of the mandrel to a second diameter of a third portion of the mandrel (paragraphs 0040 and 0065-0069; figs.1 and 11-13).
Regarding claim 8, Denison discloses wherein the tapering diameter of the first portion increases linearly from the first diameter to the second diameter (paragraphs 0040 and 0065-0069; figs.1 and 11-13).
Regarding claim 9, Denison discloses wherein the first portion comprises a tapering angle such that the tapering from the first diameter to the second diameter varies at a particular variable rate per distance (paragraphs 0040 and 0065-0069; figs.1 and 11-13).
Regarding claim 10, Denison discloses wherein the mandrel is configured to move longitudinally to vary a tapered portion of the mandrel with respect to the die face orifice (paragraph 0065-0066).
Regarding claim 11, Denison discloses wherein the mandrel is configured to move longitudinally at a fixed or variable rate per distance (paragraph 0065-0066).
Regarding claim 12, Denison disclose wherein a position along the mandrel determines a diameter of an extrudate generated by extruding the billet through the extrusion aperture (paragraph 0065-0066).
Regarding claim 13, Denison disclose wherein the mandrel is configured to move longitudinally relative to the die tool to pinch or shear off an extrudate by closing the extrusion aperture (fig.13, paragraph 0065-0066).
Regarding claim 14, Denison disclose a tailstock portion, the tailstock portion comprising a container (figs.1 and 13: (9)) configured to contain the billet; and
a linear actuation device coupled to the mandrel of the tailstock portion, wherein the linear actuation device is configured to cause linear movement of the mandrel along the central longitudinal axis (figs.1-2, 12-13; paragraphs 0009, 0040 and 0065-0066: adjust the position of the mandrel carriage and the mandrel bar; advance the mandrel bar into the die (18) “corresponding to the linear actuation device”).
Regarding claim 19, Denison discloses a method (abstract and paragraphs 0032-0068), comprising:
positioning a mandrel (figs.1 and 13: (10)) within a billet material (fig.13: (17)) in a container (figs.1 and 13: (9)) at a position such that an extrusion aperture between the mandrel and a die tool (figs.1 and 13: (18)) is a specified inner diameter (fig.13: the aperture of the element (17) having the inner diameter) (paragraph 0045 and 0067-0068),
wherein the mandrel comprises a lateral outer dimension (figs.1 and 11-13: (83)) that varies along a longitudinal direction to vary an inner boundary of the extrusion aperture; and
extruding a portion of the billet material within the container through the extrusion aperture in response to a rotational shearing force (a rational shearing force due to the rotational motion of the die (18)) and an axial extrusion force (an axial extrusion force due to movement of the mandrel (10) with respect to the die tool (18)) being applied to a face of the portion of billet material by the die tool (paragraphs 0040, 0045 and 0066-0070),
wherein the specified inner diameter of the extrusion aperture varies in response to movement of the mandrel with respect to the die tool along a longitudinal axis of the die tool (paragraphs 0040 and 0065-0068).
Regarding claim 20, Denison discloses comprising repositioning the mandrel to adjust the specified inner diameter of the extrusion aperture (paragraphs 0040 and 0065-0068).
Regarding claim 21, Denison discloses wherein repositioning of the mandrel comprises moving the mandrel along a longitudinal axis of the mandrel and the die tool at a particular rate to adjust the specified inner diameter of the extrusion aperture at the particular rate (paragraphs 0040 and 0065-0068).
Regarding claim 22, Denison discloses wherein moving the mandrel at the particular rate causes an extrudate of varying inner diameter to have a particular angle of inner diameter taper (paragraphs 0040 and 0065-0069; figs.1 and 11-13).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denison (US20140102159A1).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denison (US20140102159A1) in view of Wozniak (US3908427A).
Regarding claim 3, Denison does not disclose comprising a rotation prevention component comprising a non-circular profile that is configured to engage with the mandrel to prevent the mandrel from rotating;
Wozniak teaches a system (abstract and col.1), comprising:
a rotation prevention component comprising a non-circular profile (fig.1: (1) and (8)) that is configured to engage with a mandrel to prevent the mandrel from rotating (claim 1).
Both of the prior arts of Denison and Wozniak are related to a system for extrusion;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Denison to have a rotation prevention component comprising a non-circular profile that is configured to engage with the mandrel to prevent the mandrel from rotating as taught by Wozniak, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denison (US20140102159A1) in view of Yamamoto (US20160303629A1).
Regarding claim 15, Denison discloses the linear actuation device is configured to move the mandrel along the central longitudinal axis in a direction of the die tool such that at least a portion of the mandrel (figs.1 and 13: (10)) is outside the container (figs.1 and 13: (9))
Denison does not disclose the mandrel is configured to be removed from the linear actuation device subsequent to being outside the container.
Yamamoto Wozniak teaches a system (abstract and paragraphs 0025-0035), comprising:
a linear actuation device (fig.1: (34)) is configured to move a mandrel (fig.1: (31-32)) along a central longitudinal axis in a direction of a die tool (fig.1: (12)) such that at least a portion of the mandrel is outside the container, and
the mandrel is configured to be removed from the linear actuation device subsequent to being outside the container (paragraph 0031).
Both of the prior arts of Denison and Yamamoto are related to a system for extrusion;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Denison to the mandrel is configured to be removed from the linear actuation device subsequent to being outside the container as taught by Yamamoto, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
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 MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights