DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1,4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed (2,716,805) in view of Sakae (JP 10-113715). Reed discloses (Fig. 6) that an extruding die (32; col. 2, lines 45-50) with a molding hole (34; col. 3, lines 29-32) is configured to extrude a curved cross-sectional plate (col. 1, lines 47-48) which is sinusoidal (Fig. 8) and that is leveled by flattening the curved cross-section plate to a plate (Fig. 9; col. 3, lines 53-55) by a plurality of rollers (col. 4, lines 3-9). Regarding claim 4, Reed discloses a symmetrically repeating sinusoidal wave (34; Fig. 6) on the extruded plate. Regarding claim 5, the flattening of the curved cross-sectional plate is performed directly after it issues from the extrusion die (col. 4, lines 5-6) before the plate is cooled. Reed discloses a plurality of rollers including opposed rollers (col. 4, lines 7-8) that flatten the curved cross-section extruded plate in a continuous operation by directing plate edges outwardly but Reed does not explicitly recite staged rolling. Sakae teaches that an extruder (1, Fig. 1) of an extrusion press ([0015], lines 2-3) has an extrusion hole (6) for extruding an extrusion (8) through the extruder maximum width section (5). A roll forming device (2) comprises rolls (13) in multiple stages ([0012], lines 1-4) which gradually expand ([0010], lines 3-6) the extrusion ([0017], lines 5-11) wherein the rollers (13) are pressed by springs (12; [0017], lines 3-4) and that a gradual narrowing of the rollers occurs {0019], lines 8-11) in each of the stages (Figs. 2a-2c) as the rollers (13) gradually press the u-shape (Fig. 2a) into a v-shape (Fig. 2b) and finally into the flattened plate shape (Fig. 2c). Fig. 2a shows at least the outer rolls of the three-piece rolls (13) contacting the extrusion (8) on a curved vertical height in Fig. 2a that gradually decreases until the rolls (13) in Fig. 2c press the extrusion flat. A roll gap is opened wide prior to extrusion ([0019], lines 9-10) and it narrows (descends) during extrusion to press the extrusion (8; [0019], lines 10-13) as the rolls (13) push the extrusion in each stage. Sakae teaches that the extrusion is about twice the diameter of the extruder container ([0022], lines 1-3) and it is flattened to a wide width. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to construct the plurality of rollers of Reed in multiple stages as taught by Sakae in order to gradually continuously level the curved cross-sectional plate to a level flattened plate as the roller are gradually pushed against the extrusion.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed (2,716,805) in view of Sakae (JP 10-113715) and further in view of Wu et al. (CN 105855309). Reed discloses that plastic aluminum alloy material (col. 1, line 43 and col. 2, lines 29-30) is extruded but Reed does not explicitly recite an extrusion temperature of 400-550°C. Wu teaches that a cylindrical aluminum alloy billet (5) is heated to 400-450°C (page 4, “Preferred Embodiment’, paragraph 4) prior to extrusion through a die (7,8). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to heat the aluminum alloy material of Reed to a temperature of 400-450°C as taught by Wu in order to plasticize the billet for die extrusion.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed (2,716,805) in view of Sakae (JP 10-113715) and further in view of Thornburgh (2,453,165). Reed does not disclose coiling the plate after extrusion. Thornburgh teaches that extruded metal (A) is flattened in rollers (21; col. 3, lines 18-21) and is would into a coil (D) on a spool (28; col. 3, lines 44-47). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to coil the flattened plate of Reed on a spool as taught by Thornburgh in order to prepare the flattened plate for transportation and handling.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8-6-2025 have been fully considered. The amended language “width of up to twice an extrusion width of the extruded plate prior to flattening” is met by Reed since Fig. 6 shows that an extrusion (Figs. 6-8) is extruded in an extruder having an extrusion plate (32) with a hole (34), the hole being equal to a maximum width of the extruder. After extrusion the plate is flattened (Figs. 7 and 8) to be longer than the than the extrusion width of the circular extrusion. The new reference to Sakae teaches that flattening occurs in multiple stages with progressively decreasing gaps (Figs 2a-2c) wherein the rolls are configured by resilient springs (12) to gradually press against curved extrusion sections (8) in Figs. 2a and 2b until they flatten the extrusion section in Fig. 2c.
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 EDWARD THOMAS TOLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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.
/EDWARD T TOLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725