DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 6, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Kim (KR 101 554 482) discloses an apparatus for forming a pipe. As can be seen in figures 7 and 8, an end of a pipe can be inserted between two rollers 52 and 62, and then the pipe is manually raised so that an angle of inclination between the pipe 2 and the end section between the rollers 52 and 62 is present. This angle of inclination is made larger step-by-step until the flange at the pipe is formed, as shown in figure 14.
Such an operation requires manual skills when holding the rotating pipe with the end flange being rotated between the rollers 52 and 62. If the pipe has thick pipe walls, high forces are needed. Both rollers 52 and 62 have a cylindrical outer surface, so that the forming steps are completely different when compared to the present application.”
Examiner respectfully maintains that Applicant’s remarks are stating how Kim’s machine is utilized to form a workpiece while the language in claim 14 is directed towards the assembling of the machine via transporting and connecting elements prior to utilizing the machine to form a workpiece. Therefore, Applicant’s remarks are not on point.
It is further noted that the Examiner respectfully maintains that while Kim does not expressly disclose “transporting,” “connecting” & “fixing” the claimed elements, it is considered to be common knowledge to one of ordinary skill in the art that machine elements would be generically transported and assembled, as claimed, for maintenance or exchange purposes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide transporting and connecting steps because applying a known technique according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (hereafter “Kim”)(KR101554482) in view of Schwermasch (FR2111855).
Kim discloses a mobile flanging machine for pipes, comprising:
a portable frame (3),
a drive (motor 4) mounted on the portable frame,
a roller (52) that is configured to be driven by the drive via a transmission (41), and an adjustment mechanism (7) fixed to the frame (3), and
a counterpressure roller (62) is movably held on the adjustment mechanism (7),
wherein a bent-over flange is produced on a pipe end by inserting the pipe end into a gap between the roller (52) and the counterpressure roller (7).
With regards to the newly presented limitation (in claims 1 and 14), wherein the roller (52) is profiled and comprises a radially protruding section and a cylindrical section of smaller diameter than the radially protruding section, please see attached annotated Figure 6 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
330
327
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 2, Kim discloses wherein the drive (4) is detachably fixed to the frame (3).
With regards to claim 6, Kim discloses wherein the frame is substantially cuboidal and has interconnected profiles (20, 21).
With regards to claim 9, Kim discloses wherein the drive comprises an electric motor (4) connected to the coupling part via an angular gear [paragraph 0054].
Kim discloses that the drive motor 4 and transmission 41 are coupled together but does not disclose specifically what type of coupling parts are utilized. Kim discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the drive is engaged with the transmission via a claw coupling part. It is considered to be well-known that motor and transmission can be connected via many different types of coupling such as; flexible, bellow, hear, variable speed, constant speed, claw, or bushed pin-type. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a claw coupling since it would have been obvious to try this technique when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for coating, with a reasonable expectation of success. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Kim discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the flanging machine has a total weight of less than 130 kg. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed weight, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a results effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Kim discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the adjustment mechanism is a toggle lever mechanism. Schwermasch is relied upon to teach a flange forming device with a toggle lever mechanism 6 that supports roller 5. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Kim’s adjustment mechanism with Schwermasch’s adjustment mechanism because simple substitution of one known element for another yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
With regards to claims 10 and 15, Kim discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein a housing is provided around the frame and the drive. It is considered to be common knowledge that a housing be provided for protecting the internal parts of a machine against external contamination and protecting operators against movable parts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Kim’s device with housing because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
With regards to claim 14, Kim does not expressly disclose transporting and connecting & fixing the claimed elements. It is considered to be common knowledge that parts would need to be transported and assembled for maintenance or exchange purposes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide transporting and connecting steps because applying a known technique according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Schwermasch and Stauffacher et al. (hereafter “Stauffacher”).
The combination of Kim and Schwermasch discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein a foot lever is provided on the adjustment mechanism and configured for actuating or moving the counterpressure roller. Stauffacher is relied upon to teach a flange forming device with a foot lever 52 to control the flange forming. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Kim’s device with foot lever because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Claims 11-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Schwermasch and Binggeli et al. (hereafter “Binggeli”) (US 6,598,285).
Kim discloses a cover plate (8). The combination of Kim and Schwermasch discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for a plurality of strips fixed to the upper side of a cover plate and the strips are screwed to the frame, wherein the strips are a contact surface is provided around the roller for limiting the axial movement of the pipe. Binggeli is relied upon to teach a flanging machine with a roller (7) wherein a contact surface is provided around the roller for limiting the axial movement of the pipe, the contact surface comprises a plurality of strips (8, 10) fixed to an upper side of a cover plate (3) and the strips are screwed to the frame (120). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Kim’s device with a plurality of strips because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and further show the state of the art: US Patent 6,598,285 discloses profiled rollers 7a, as seen in Figure 1a.
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 TERESA M EKIERT whose telephone number is (571)272-1901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM EST.
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.
/TERESA M EKIERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights