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 .
Examiner’s Comment on Certain Terminology
The specification and claims in this national stage entry application recite “tempering” steps (e.g., claim 6, line 8; claim 10, line 2; pg. 7, line 8 [temoering intended to read tempering]; pg. 9, line 8; see also pg. 8, line 9). However, the corresponding portions of the original foreign priority application recite “geglüht” or “glühen”, which translate to “annealed” and “annealing”, respectively. It is noted that applicant’s abstract in the instant application also refers to “annealing” rather than “tempering”. The abstract of WO 2022/128816 A2 (publication of parent application PCT/EP2021/085290) also refers to “annealing” rather than “tempering”.
While “tempering” and “annealing” are both forms of heat treatment which reduce hardness, they are performed differently and achieve somewhat different effects:
Annealing conventionally involves heating a metal above a recrystallization temperature to soften a metal (i.e., reducing hardness / increasing ductility), e.g., to remove hardness caused by previous cold working, to allow for subsequent cold working / machining, etc.
Tempering conventionally involves heating a metal to below a recrystallization temperature, to increase toughness (fracture resistance) by decreasing hardness, and to decrease brittleness. Unlike annealing, the tempering process, which is usually performed after quenching (rapid cooling), is generally intended to relieve stress without destroying the crystal structure achieved by said quenching.
As best understood the claims and specification in this action were likely intended to read “annealed”/”annealing” instead of “tempered”/”tempering”. The specification and claims will be interpreted in this manner for examination in this action, however, appropriate clarification is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pg. 7, line 7: “Cold woring” should read “Cold working”
Pg. 7, line 8: “temoering” appears it was intended to read “Tempering”, however, this likely should read “Annealing” (see examiner’s comment above)
Pg. 8, line 9: “not tempered” likely should read “not annealed” (see above)
Pg. 9, line 8: “tempered” likely should read “annealed” (see above)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 7: “wherein an axial length is 12 m or more” should read “wherein the axial length is 12 m or more” as “an axial length” is already established in line 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a mere “use” of a tube (i.e. for carrying a fluid).
As set forth in MPEP § 2173.05(q), "Use" claims that do not purport to claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter fail to comply with 35 U.S.C. 101. In re Moreton, 288 F.2d 708, 709, 129 USPQ 227, 228 (CCPA 1961)("one cannot claim a new use per se, because it is not among the categories of patentable inventions specified in 35 U.S.C. § 101 ").
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 6-15 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.
Claim 6 recites a step of “tempering of the tubular intermediate product”. As explained in the “Examiner’s Comment on Certain Terminology” section above, it appears that this was likely intended to read “annealing of the tubular intermediate product”, as is recited in the foreign and PCT applications to which the instant application claims priority, and as otherwise recited in the abstract of the instant application.
The conflict or inconsistency between the 1) claimed subject matter & written description of this application (which recite tempering) and 2) the abstract of this application & the original disclosures of the priority applications (which recite annealing) causes the scope of the claim to take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
To promote compact prosecution, for examination in this action, claim 6 will be interpreted as reciting “annealing” which is understood to have been most likely intended (and which make the most sense in context with cold working operations); however, appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the tube is not tempered after the second working step”. For the same reasons set forth above, it is unclear if “not tempered” was intended to read “not annealed” as set forth in the priority applications, causing the claim to take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
To promote compact prosecution, for examination in this action, claim 10 will be interpreted as reciting “not annealed”, which is understood to have been most likely intended (and which make the most sense in context with cold working operations); however, appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Claim 12 recites “A use of a tube according to claim 1 for carrying a fluid comprising a pressure of 800 bar or more”. The claim is indefinite as it may be seen as an attempt to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process.
As set forth in MPEP § 2173.05(q): attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raised an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). For example, a claim which read: "[a] process for using monoclonal antibodies of claim 4 to isolate and purify human fibroblast interferon" was held to be indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Ex parte Erlich, 3 USPQ2d 1011 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986).
Claims recited in the section heading above but not specifically discussed are rejected due to dependency upon at least one rejected claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frobose et al. (US 2018/0223388 A1; hereafter Frobose) in view of Makino et al. (US 2023/0140650 A1; hereafter Makino) and Guhrs et al. (US 2018/0209005 A1; hereafter Guhrs).
Regarding claim 1, Frobose discloses a tube for carrying a fluid (see, e.g., para. 33: “tubes with high tensile strength…as high pressure lines for a wide range of applications”), comprising:
an outer wall surface, an inner wall surface (i.e., the outer and inner wall surfaces of such a tube), an outer diameter, an inner diameter (para. 34: “in a tubular strand, the billed and the finished strand have an inner diameter and an outer diameter”), a wall thickness defined by a half of a difference between the outer diameter and the inner diameter (i.e., the definition of a tubular wall thickness; see, e.g., para. 34: “…thick-walled tubes are required in the high-pressure technique for fluid guidance”), and an axial length (see para. 32: “…a workpiece with a larger, in particular much larger, longitudinal extent compared to its cross-section…”,
wherein the wall thickness is equal to or larger than the inner diameter (para. 34: “Tubes in which the inner diameter is half the outer diameter or less, preferably one third of the outer diameter of less, are considered to be high-pressure resistant…”; see also para. 35, published claim 13; the wall thickness would be equal to or larger than the inner diameter when the inner diameter is one third or less of the outer diameter).
Regarding the limitation wherein a tensile strength Rm is 850 N/mm2 or more, while not explicitly stated by Frobose, the reference does disclose that, when formed from austenitic stainless steel, the elastic limit (Rp0.2) may be 812 N/mm2 (para. 43), whereby a corresponding tensile strength would reasonably be expected to be 850 N/mm2 or more (note: instant claim 2 requires an elastic limit Rp0.2 of 750 N/mm2 or more; as the elastic limit of Frobose is higher than the elastic limit of the claim 2 here, the corresponding tensile strength is also reasonably higher). However, to promote compact prosecution, the following teaching of Makino is noted.
In particular, Makino teaches that a steel tube (pipe) having a wall thickness which may be equal to or larger than the inner diameter (see para. 45: D/d is “more preferably 2.0 or more”; see also paras. 76-79, wherein D/d may be > 3.0) may have “mechanical properties…selected according to the usage” of the tube and, when used as pressure piping, may have a tensile strength of “preferably 500 MPa or more…, more preferably 800 MPa or more, and…still more preferably 900 MPa or more” (para. 50; 1 MPa = 1 N/mm2).
If not already seen as such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tube of Frobose to have a tensile strength Rm of 850 N/mm2 or more, in view of the teachings of Makino, as Makino explains that such tubes may have mechanical properties selected according to the required usage and, when used as pressure piping, such a tube may have a tensile strength of, e.g., 800 MPa or more (encompassing the claimed range) or 900 MPa or more (within the claimed range), etc.
Regarding the limitation wherein the axial length is 12 m or more, while Frobose does not recite a specific axial length, as set forth in MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
However, to promote compact prosecution, the following teaching of Guhrs is provided.
Guhrs teaches that a steel tube (e.g., an austenitic stainless steel tube), formed from a blank by cold working (e.g., cold pilger milling or cold drawing [para. 11]) may have lengths of “at least 6 m, for example, of at least 12 m and/or of at least 100 m” (para. 30). Guhrs explains that certain applications, such as off-shore sea water environments and/or for guiding aggressive media, require shipping in such lengths (paras. 4-7), e.g. in a coiled arrangement (para. 23).
If not already seen as such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tube of Frobose to have an axial length of 12 m or more (e.g., 100 m or more), in view of the teachings of Guhrs, as Guhrs explicitly suggests that such tubes may be provided in lengths of, for example 12 m or more or even 100 m or more, as is otherwise known to be required for particular applications.
Frobose does not explicitly disclose the additional limitation wherein a mean roughness index Ra of the inner wall surface is 0.8 μm or less.
Makino, however, further teaches that inner wall surfaces of such tubes may be polished to have a mean roughness index Ra of 0.2 μm or less (para. 87).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tube of Frobose such that a mean roughness index Ra of the inner wall surface is 0.8 μm or less (e.g. 0.2 μm or less), in view of the teachings of Makino, e.g., to ensure desired flow performance, to enhance corrosion resistance, and/or to meet required sanitary standards, as is otherwise well known in the art.
Examination Note: to promote compact prosecution, it is noted that certain regulations and industry standards require tubing to meet inner wall surface finish requirements. By way of example, “Bio-Processing Equipment” by Hygienic Stainless Steels Ltd., cited in the PTO-892 provided with this action, explains that the interior surfaces of tubes may meet an SF1 surface designation of ASME BPE-2016, as drawn or polished, with an Ra of 0.51 μm max, or an SF4 designation via mechanical polishing and/or electropolishing, with an Ra of 0.38 μm max.
Regarding claim 2, Frobose discloses the additional limitation wherein an elastic limit (Rp0.2) is 750 N/mm2 or more (see para. 43: the elastic limit (Rp0.2) may be 812 N/mm2).
Regarding claim 3, Frobose discloses the additional limitation wherein the tube is made of a stainless steel (see title, abstract, claim 1, etc.; see also para. 39: the stainless steel may be an austenitic stainless steel).
Regarding claim 4, the tube of Frobose, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the axial length is 100 m or more (i.e., as noted for claim 1 above, Guhrs explicitly teaches that such a tube may be manufactured to have a length of at least 100 m).
Regarding claim 5, with respect to the limitation wherein the tube is coiled into a coil, Guhrs further teaches that coiling a tube into a coil is required in order to allow shipping / transport of finished tubes with lengths over 6 m to a location of use (para. 23, lines 9-16; see also, e.g., para. 34). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tube of Frobose such that the tube is coiled into a coil, in view of the teachings of Guhrs, to allow the finished tube to be shipped or otherwise transported for use at another location (i.e., as suggested by Guhrs).
Claims 6, 8-11 & 13 (as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (US 2003/0196734 A1) in view of Frobose, Makino, and Guhrs.
Regarding claim 6, Ogawa discloses a method of manufacturing a tube (see abstract; para 24; claim 1, etc.), comprising the steps of:
providing a hollow (i.e., “a tubing material for the seamless steel tube” initially formed by a hot working process), the hollow comprising an outer wall surface, an inner wall surface, an outer diameter, an inner diameter, a wall thickness defined by a half of a difference between the outer diameter and the inner diameter, and an axial length (i.e., a “hollow cylindrical shape”; see para. 3),
cold working of the hollow into a tubular intermediate product in a first working step (see “cold drawing” before the heat treatment in para. 24; see also para. 33),
tempering (annealing) of the tubular intermediate product (see paras. 24, 33, 35; see also paras. 18-22) and
cold working the tubular intermediate product into the tube in a second working step (see “cold rolling” after the heat treatment in para. 24; paras. 37-38).
Ogawa does not explicitly disclose the additional limitations wherein a wall thickness of the tube is equal to or larger than an inner diameter of the tube, wherein an axial length of the tube is 12 m or more, wherein a tensile strength Rm of the tube is 850 N/mm2 or more, and wherein a mean roughness index Ra of an inner wall surface of the tube is 0.8 μm or less.
Regarding the limitation wherein a wall thickness of the tube is equal to or larger than an inner diameter of the tube, Frobose teaches (para. 34) that “thick-walled tubes are required in the high-pressure technique for fluid guidance”, and that “[t]ubes in which the inner diameter is half the outer diameter or less, preferably one third of the outer diameter of less, are considered to be high-pressure resistant…” (see also para. 35). As can be readily calculated, the wall thickness would be equal to or larger than the inner diameter when the inner diameter is one third of the outer diameter or less.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ogawa such that the wall thickness of the tube is equal to or larger than an inner diameter of the tube (i.e., such that the inner diameter is one-third or less of the outer diameter), in view of the teachings of Frobose, to produce a high-pressure resistant “thick-walled tube” as may be required for guiding high-pressure fluids (i.e., as suggested by Frobose).
Regarding the limitation wherein the axial length is 12 m or more, Guhrs teaches that a steel tube (e.g., a stainless steel tube), formed from a blank by cold working (e.g., cold pilger milling or cold drawing [para. 11]) may have lengths of “at least 6 m, for example, of at least 12 m and/or of at least 100 m” (para. 30). Guhrs explains that certain applications, such as off-shore sea water environments and/or for guiding aggressive media, require shipping in such lengths (paras. 4-7), e.g. in a coiled arrangement (para. 23).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ogawa such that an axial length of the tube is 12 m or more (e.g., 100 m or more), in view of the teachings of Guhrs, as Guhrs explicitly suggests that such tubes may be provided in lengths of, for example 12 m or more or even 100 m or more, as is otherwise known to be required for particular applications.
Regarding the limitation wherein a tensile strength Rm is 850 N/mm2 or more, Makino teaches that a steel tube (pipe), which may have a wall thickness equal to or larger than the inner diameter (see para. 45: D/d is “more preferably 2.0 or more”; see also paras. 76-79, wherein D/d may be > 3.0) may have “mechanical properties…selected according to the usage” of the tube and, when used as pressure piping, may have a tensile strength of “preferably 500 MPa or more…, more preferably 800 MPa or more, and…still more preferably 900 MPa or more” (para. 50; 1 MPa = 1 N/mm2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ogawa such that a tensile strength Rm of the tube is 850 N/mm2 or more, in view of the teachings of Makino, as Makino explains that such tubes may have mechanical properties selected according to the required usage and, when used as pressure piping (e.g., high-pressure piping, as otherwise suggested by Frobose), such a tube may have a tensile strength of, e.g., 800 MPa or more (encompassing the claimed range) or 900 MPa or more (within the claimed range), etc.
Examination Note: to promote compact prosecution, it is noted that Frobose teaches a stainless steel tube may have an elastic limit (Rp0.2) of 812 N/mm2 (para. 43), and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect a corresponding tensile strength to be 850 N/mm2 or more. It is also noted that instant claim 2 requires an elastic limit Rp0.2 of 750 N/mm2 or more, while instant claim 1 similarly recites a tensile strength of 850 N/mm2 or more. As the elastic limit of Frobose is higher than the elastic limit of claim 2 here, the corresponding tensile strength would also reasonably be higher.
Regarding the limitation wherein a mean roughness index Ra of an inner wall surface of the tube is 0.8 μm or less, Makino further teaches that inner wall surfaces of such tubes may be polished to have a mean roughness index Ra of 0.2 μm or less (para. 87).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ogawa such that a mean roughness index Ra of the inner wall surface of the tube is 0.8 μm or less (e.g. 0.2 μm or less), in view of the teachings of Makino, e.g., to ensure desired flow performance, to enhance corrosion resistance, and/or to meet required sanitary standards, as is otherwise well known in the art.
Examination Note: to promote compact prosecution, it is noted that certain regulations and industry standards require tubing to meet inner wall surface finish requirements. By way of example, “Bio-Processing Equipment” by Hygienic Stainless Steels Ltd., cited in the PTO-892 provided with this action, explains that the interior surfaces of tubes may meet an SF1 surface designation of ASME BPE-2016, as drawn or polished, with an Ra of 0.51 μm max, or an SF4 designation via mechanical polishing and/or electropolishing, with an Ra of 0.38 μm max.
Regarding claim 8, with respect to the limitation wherein the hollow comprises an axial length of 12 m or less, as would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art, when a tube is formed by cold drawing and/or cold pilger milling, the initial blank (hollow) is worked so as to reduce the outer diameter and wall thickness, which results in the tube having a longer axial length (often significantly longer length) than the initial blank (hollow)(see also Guhrs, paras. 13-17, describing cold pilger milling, and paras. 18-19, describing cold drawing).
As described for claim 6 above, Guhrs teaches that a steel tube (e.g., a stainless steel tube), formed from a blank by cold working (e.g., cold pilger milling or cold drawing [para. 11]) may have lengths of “for example, of at least 12 m and/or of at least 100 m” (para. 30).
When the method of Ogawa is modified in view of Guhrs (i.e., as set forth for claim 6 above), at least when the axial length of the tube is selected to be at or near the lower end of the range (e.g., 12 m), the hollow from which the tube is formed would reasonably comprise an axial length of 12 m or less.
Regarding claim 9, with respect to the limitation wherein the tube is coiled after the second working step, Guhrs further teaches that coiling a tube is required in order to allow shipping / transport of finished tubes with lengths over 6 m to a location of use (para. 23, lines 9-16; see also, e.g., para. 34).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ogawa such that the tube is coiled after the second working step (i.e., after being formed to the desired final dimensions), in view of the teachings of Guhrs, to allow the finished tube to be shipped or otherwise transported for use at another location (i.e., as suggested by Guhrs).
Regarding claim 10, with respect to the limitation wherein the tube is not tempered (annealed) after the second working step and before the coiling step, Guhrs further explains that, while prior art techniques typically employ a heat treatment / annealing step after cold forming, they have found that the effect of such annealing is largely nullified by the subsequent coiling or winding step (para. 23).
As such, Guhrs suggests that the coiling step should be performed first, whereby such annealing / heat treatment is only performed after the coiling step (para. 24).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ogawa such that the tube is not tempered (annealed) after the second working step and before the coiling step, in view of the teachings of Guhrs, as Guhrs explains that the effect of such tempering (annealing) would be largely nullified anyway by the subsequent coiling step and, if required, the tube can be tempered (annealed) after coiling.
Regarding claim 11, Ogawa discloses the additional limitation wherein the cold working is cold drawing or cold pilger milling (i.e., Ogawa discloses the cold working in the first working step may be cold drawing, and the cold working in the second working step may be cold pilger milling; see paras. 4, 5, 24, 33, 37, 38 & published claims 1 & 3).
Examination Note: Frobose (e.g., paras. 12, 15-19) and Guhrs (e.g., paras. 12, 14-19, 41, 56) each further teach both cold drawing and cold pilger milling. Of particular note, para. 41 of Guhrs teaches that a tube may be first worked by cold pilger milling, then annealed, and then cold drawn to final dimensions, i.e., the reverse order relative to that of Ogawa. From para. 56 of Guhrs, it also appears that any suitable cold working techniques could be used for the first or second working steps.
Regarding claim 13, the method of Ogawa, as modified above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the axial length of the tube is 100 m or more.
In particular, as noted for claim 6 above, Guhrs explicitly teaches that such a tube may be manufactured to have a length of at least 100 m.
Claims 7, 14 & 15 (as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Frobose, Makino, and Guhrs as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Fonte (US 2015/0183015 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the method of Ogawa reads on the additional limitations wherein in the first working step the hollow undergoes a first reduction in wall thickness and a first reduction in outer diameter (see paras. 33-37; table 4, etc.), and
wherein in the second working step the tubular intermediate product undergoes a second reduction in wall thickness and a second reduction in outer diameter (see para. 37-38; table 4, etc.).
Ogawa does not explicitly disclose the additional limitation wherein the first reduction in wall thickness is larger than the second reduction in wall thickness and the first reduction in outer diameter is larger than the second reduction in outer diameter.
Fonte is generally directed to forming seamless tubes using compressive / cold working techniques. In the illustrative example, Fonte describes certain aspects using a “flowforming” process example, which is noted to be a “cold-forming process” (para. 30). However, Fonte explicitly notes that the “discussion of flowforming is illustrative and is not intended to limit the scope…. Accordingly, metal forming processes may include other metal forming processes that apply compressive forces to reduce an inner and outer diameter of a tubular workpiece in order to obtain a reduction in the wall thickness of the component, such as rolling, radial forging and pilgering” (para. 29; see also para. 46).
Of relevance here, Fonte teaches (para. 38) that if a reduction is too small, plastic deformation may be limited to the outermost part of the wall, and the tube wall may tear. Conversely, if the reduction is too large, the process may be unable to move the material, which may damage the inner surface of the tube. As such, Fonte suggests performing multiple working steps, with a relatively large first reduction and smaller additional reductions, when necessary.
By way of example, Fonte suggests that “When two or more passes are used, the first pass, preferably, is larger than the subsequent passes… For example, for a 35% wall reduction using more than one pass, the first pass may be at least a 25% wall reduction and the second pass may be a 10% wall reduction” (para. 38).
Finally, Fonte explains that an annealing step may be used to soften the cold-worked material and, as ductility is restored by annealing, a component may undergo additional cold-working passes after such cold-working (para. 45).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ogawa such that the first reduction in wall thickness is larger than the second reduction in wall thickness and the first reduction in outer diameter is larger than the second reduction in outer diameter, in view of the teachings of Fonte, as the use of a known technique (i.e., configuring a first cold working step of a tube forming process to cause a relatively larger reduction in wall thickness [and thus a relatively larger reduction in outer diameter] than a second cold working step, as in Fonte) to improve a similar method (i.e., the tube forming process of Ogawa, having at least two cold working steps) in the same way (e.g., accommodating the decreased ductility and increased hardness which results from cold-working such materials, which may reduce tearing / cracking of the tube material and/or may reduce wear / stress on the forming equipment, etc.).
Regarding claim 14, with respect to the limitation wherein the hollow comprises an axial length of 12 m or less, as would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art, when a tube is formed by cold drawing and/or cold pilger milling, the initial blank (hollow) is worked so as to reduce the outer diameter and wall thickness, which results in the tube having a longer axial length (often significantly longer length) than the initial blank (hollow)(see also Guhrs, paras. 13-17, describing cold pilger milling, and paras. 18-19, describing cold drawing).
As described for claim 6 above, Guhrs teaches that a steel tube (e.g., a stainless steel tube), formed from a blank by cold working (e.g., cold pilger milling or cold drawing [para. 11]) may have lengths of “for example, of at least 12 m and/or of at least 100 m” (para. 30).
When the method of Ogawa is modified in view of Guhrs (i.e., as set forth for claim 6 above), at least when the axial length of the tube is selected to be at or near the lower end of the range (e.g., 12 m), the hollow from which the tube is formed would reasonably comprise an axial length of 12 m or less.
Regarding claim 15, the method of Ogawa, as modified above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the axial length of the tube is 100 m or more.
In particular, as noted for claim 6 above, Guhrs explicitly teaches that such a tube may be manufactured to have a length of at least 100 m.
Claim 12 (as understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frobose in view of Makino and Guhrs, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Usui (US 5,887,628).
Regarding claim 12, Frobose, as modified above, discloses or otherwise renders obvious a use of a tube (i.e., according to claim 1) for carrying a fluid comprising a pressure (see para. 33: “high-pressure lines for a wide range of applications”; para. 34: “…thick-walled tubes are required in the high-pressure technique for fluid guidance…”).
Frobose does not explicitly disclose the pressure being 800 bar or more.
Usui teaches (e.g. description of related art section in col. 1) that seamless / drawn steel tubes (pipes) are conventionally known to be used for fuel injection pipes having high internal pressures of 1200 bar or more. While steel tubes with tensile strengths of between 340 N/mm2 and 410 N/mm2 are usable, it is also known to use higher tension steels (e.g., in a class from 490 N/mm2 to 800 N/mm2) as a countermeasure against fatigue.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the tube of Frobose (as modified in the grounds of rejection for claim 1 above, e.g., to have a tensile strength of 850 N/mm2 or more) for carrying a fluid comprising a pressure of 800 bar or more, in view of the teachings of Usui, as Frobose discloses that such tubes are useful as high-pressure lines in a wide range of applications, and Usui correspondingly suggests one example of a high-pressure application (i.e., high-pressure fuel injection) wherein it is conventionally known to use seamless steel tubes of similar (or even lower) tensile strengths for carrying fluids at pressures up to 1200 bar.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard K Durden whose telephone number is (571) 270-0538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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 supervisors can be reached by phone: Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881; Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Richard K. Durden/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753