CTNF 18/416,985 CTNF 92967 DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are pending, and claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, and 13-20 are currently under review. Claims 4, 6, 8, and 12 are withdrawn. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse in the reply filed on 5/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examiner has not met the burden of showing different CPC classifications, etc. This is not found persuasive because the aforementioned restriction pertains to a species restriction, wherein a search burden has already been previously explained in the previous restriction requirement. Specifically, the species are distinct because they are mutually exclusive. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 08-05 Claims 4, 6, 8, and 12 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/12/2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. Claim 9 is 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 9 recites heating “to achieve a specific temperature profile”. It is unclear as to what temperature value/profile, if any, is required by the term “specific”, or whether any arbitrary heating temperature can meet the claimed range because applicant has not defined or provided any further explanation regarding the term “specific”. The examiner interprets the claim to be met by any arbitrary, desirable temperature as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill. 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-36-01 AIA Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 requires cooling with cooled air. However, claim 16 is dependent upon claim 1, which requires cooling with ambient air. One of ordinary skill would understand “ambient” to refer to that of the immediate surroundings, which is not “cooled air” because cooled air would require the air to be at a temperature that is below ambient surroundings . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3, 5, 9-11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda (1968, Bending of alloy steel pipes and copper alloy pipes by high frequency induction heating method ) in view of Zhou et al. (WO2019174151, machine translation referred to herein); and alternatively over the aforementioned prior art and further in view of Lee et al. (2012, Mechanical characteristics of low-carbon-steel pipe bent by local induction heating with small bending radii ) . Regarding claim 1, Takeda discloses a method of bending steel pipes (ie. tubular components) by providing a steel pipe and moving said steel pipe through an induction coil (ie. feeding into a heating unit and heating as claimed), followed by performing bending (ie. bending using a bending unit) and subsequent cooling in air (ie. cooling using a cooling unit with ambient air) [p.376-379]. Takeda does not teach the presence of any coatings on the steel pipe, such that one of ordinary skill would understand the pipe to be free of coatings as claimed. Takeda does not teach forced air cooling or the presence of other air/media sources, such that one of ordinary skill would understand the pair cooling of Takeda to be performed with ambient air as claimed. The apparatus of Takeda is also depicted to employ continuous operation as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill [p.376]. Takeda does not expressly teach that the steel pipe is made from a press hardened steel as claimed. Zhou et al. discloses that it is known to shape and process hot stamped (ie. press hardened) X90 steel by induction bending to form pipes [p.1-2]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the method of Takeda by processing hot stamped steels in order to manufacture steel pipes made from hot stamped steel as taught by Zhou et al. above. Alternatively, the aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach processing of a continuous pipe as claimed. Lee et al. discloses that it is known to perform continuous induction bending of steel pipes [p.847]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Takeda by performing the method of Takeda on a continuous pipe such that the method of Takeda can be performed continuously. The examiner further notes that all of the claimed limitations are disclosed in the prior art, although not necessarily in a single reference, wherein it would have been obvious to combine the prior art elements to arrive at the predictable result of the known induction bending method of Takeda, wherein said method can merely be performed in a continuous manner as taught by Lee et al. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The examiner further notes that the mere recitation of a continuous process is not patentable absent evidence of unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(E). Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Takeda further teaches that the heating unit is an induction coil [p.376-379]. Regarding claim 3, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach multiple induction coils in series as claimed. However, the examiner notes that the instant claim merely pertains to duplication of induction coil heating sources, which is prima facie obvious because the mere duplication of parts is not patentable absent the presence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Regarding claim 5, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Takeda further depicts the steel pipe to be a concentric pipe [p.376-379]. Regarding claim 9, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Takeda further teaches that heating conditions such as induction current, voltage, etc. may be varied as shown in [fig.19] in order to achieve a desired temperature depending on the steel pipe dimensions [p.389- 390]. The examiner notes that varying induction current, voltage, etc. as taught by Takeda above would naturally result in a variation in heating rate as claimed because induction heating rate is directly influenced by the induction coil power parameters. Regarding claims 10-11, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Takeda et al. further teaches that induction heating is performed at 800 to 1000 degrees C and is silent regarding any particular duration of soaking, which one of ordinary skill would understand to be no soaking time (ie. 0 seconds) meeting the claimed range of “less than 30 seconds”. The examiner notes that the aforementioned temperature range of Takeda et al. overlaps with that as claimed and would therefore be entirely capable of producing a fully austenite structure as claimed. Regarding claim 17, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Takeda further teaches obtaining elongation values that meet the claimed range [tables1, 6-7] . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda (1968, Bending of alloy steel pipes and copper alloy pipes by high frequency induction heating method ) and others as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiong et al. (CN104480279, machine translation referred to herein) . Regarding claim 3, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach multiple induction heaters in series as claimed. Xiong et al. discloses that it is known to perform induction bending of steel pipes utilizing two induction coils in series in order to perform preheating and heating, respectively [0002-0010, fig.1]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by utilizing multiple induction heating coils for preheating and heating in multiple stages as taught by Xiong et al . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 7, 9, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda (1968, Bending of alloy steel pipes and copper alloy pipes by high frequency induction heating method ) and others as applied to claim s 1-3 above, and further in view of either one of Valdez et al. (US 2012/0186686) or Hordych et al. (2017, Manufacturing of tailored tubes with a process integrated heat treatment ) . Regarding claims 7 and 9, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach varying temperatures along a length of the pipe and varying a heating rate to achieve a desired temperature profile and variable mechanical properties as claimed. However, the examiner submits that this feature would have been obvious in view of the prior art. Valdez et al. discloses that it is known to vary induction heating rate and heating temperatures along a steel tube in order to obtain tailored temperatures and corresponding properties along a length of the tube [abstract, 0056-0059]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by varying induction heating rate and temperatures to obtain tailored mechanical properties along a length of the tube as taught by Valdez et al. Alternatively, Hordych et al. discloses that it is known to vary induction heating parameters such as capacity and frequency (which would naturally correspond to variation in heating rate and temperatures) along a steel tube in order to obtain tailored temperatures and corresponding properties along a length of the tube [abstract, p.2-4]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by varying induction heating parameters to obtain tailored mechanical properties along a length of the tube as taught by Hordych et al. Regarding claim 18, the examiner notes that claim 18 merely combines the limitations of previous claims 1-3, 7, and 9. Accordingly, the aforementioned prior art meets the limitations of claim 18 for the same reasons as explained above. Regarding claim 19, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 18 (see previous). As stated above, Takeda et al. further teaches that induction heating is performed at 800 to 1000 degrees C and is silent regarding any particular duration of soaking, which one of ordinary skill would understand to be no soaking time (ie. 0 seconds) meeting the claimed range of “less than 30 seconds”. Regarding claim 20, the examiner notes that claim 20 merely combines the limitations of previous claims 1-3, 7, and 9-11. Accordingly, the aforementioned prior art meets the limitations of claim 20 for the same reasons as explained above . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 10-11 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda (1968, Bending of alloy steel pipes and copper alloy pipes by high frequency induction heating method ) and others as applied to claim s 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Klarner (US 2011/0272067) . Regarding claims 10-11 and 19, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claims 1 and 18 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a step of soaking at a temperature and duration as claimed. Klarner discloses a method of processing steel pipes [abstract]; wherein after heating to 700 to 1050 degrees C and bending, said steel pipe is maintained within this temperature range (ie. soaked) for a period of up to 20 seconds prior to quenching such that a steel having a desirable shape profile can be achieved [abstract, 0008-0009]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by performing a soaking step as taught by Klarner for the aforementioned benefit. The examiner notes that the soaking parameters of Klaner overlap with the claimed ranges, which is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Regarding claim 20, the examiner notes that claim 20 merely combines the limitations of previous claims 1-3, 7, and 9-11. Accordingly, the aforementioned prior art meets the limitations of claim 20 for the same reasons as explained above . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda (1968, Bending of alloy steel pipes and copper alloy pipes by high frequency induction heating method ) and others as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshida et al. (WO2008123506, machine translation referred to herein) . Regarding claim 13, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach bending using the means as claimed. Yoshida et al. discloses that it is known to perform induction bending utilizing bending rollers (4) for inducing plastic deformation [p.11, 47, fig.1]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by utilizing bending rollers for plastic deformation as taught by Yoshida et al. Alternatively, the examiner notes that the aforementioned prior art teaches all of the claimed features except the recitation of bending rollers, wherein bending rollers are well-known and a predictable means of bending as disclosed by Yoshida et al., such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to substitute the rollers of Yoshida et al. for the bending arm of Takeda to arrive at the predictable result of a bending method that specifically utilizes a roller apparatus. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda (1968, Bending of alloy steel pipes and copper alloy pipes by high frequency induction heating method ) and others as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boyer et al. (2010, Techniques of quenching ) . Regarding claims 14-16, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach the cooling means as claimed. Boyer et al. discloses that gas quenching of steels provides a high degree of flexibility [p.496]; wherein gas quenching can utilized cold air [p.496]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by utilizing cold air as a quenchant for the aforementioned benefit of flexibility . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda (1968, Bending of alloy steel pipes and copper alloy pipes by high frequency induction heating method ) and others as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ilyushin et al. (2017, Improving energy efficiency of tunnel furnaces of the pipeline type – the solution of the problem ) . Regarding claim 15, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach the use of a tunnel furnace as claimed. Ilyushin et al. discloses that it is known to utilize tunnel furnaces for metal processing [table3]; wherein said tunnel furnaces allow for different zones of constant temperature conditions [p.1803]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by utilizing a tunnel furnace to achieve a constant temperature condition as taught by Ilyushin et al. The examiner notes that the recitation of “to retard a cooling rate” is an instance of functional language which merely recites a function of the tunnel furnace rather than any particular steps. Accordingly, the tunnel furnace of Ilyushin et al. would be entirely capable of retarding cooling as claimed. Nonetheless, the examiner notes that a constant heat treatment temperature condition would naturally result in retarded cooling rates as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5. 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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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. /NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/416,985 Page 2 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/416,985 Page 3 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/416,985 Page 6 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/416,985 Page 7 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/416,985 Page 8 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/416,985 Page 9 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/416,985 Page 10 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/416,985 Page 11 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/416,985 Page 12 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/416,985 Page 13 Art Unit: 1734
Prosecution Insights