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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is written in the form of a claim rather than a narrative form in a single paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 2 and 4-7 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.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “the shaping tool has a receiving area for arranging thereon a shape memory workpiece having a first diameter… [and] the transversing tube is configured to be moved relative to the receiving area” which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the shaping area is a component of the tool or an area outside of the tool which the transversing tube moves relative to. The specification does not help clarify this issue as the shaping area is referred to as area 12 initially in Figs. 5A-E and discussed in Paras. [0141]-[0145], however the part of the tool 12 is moved past the workpiece so that other areas of the shaping tool, e.g., 14, may engage the workpiece and expand the diameter. Thus, while area around portion 12 of the shaping tool initially receives the workpiece, portion 14 is then moved into the area to engage the tool, i.e., the receiving area is not a part of the tool itself but the space within which the shaping tool moves. For the purpose of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as the transversing tube of the shaping tool is configured to move through an area in which a workpiece with a first diameter is arranged.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “wherein each expansion wire is preferably arranged in the respective sliding groove such that it projects radially outward with respect to the disk in the sliding groove of which the expansion wire is guided” which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if this limitation is required or if it is merely “preferable” that this feature is included. For the purpose of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as wherein each expansion wire is arranged in the respective sliding groove such that it projects radially outward with respect to the disk in the sliding groove of which the expansion wire is guided.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “a heating device, preferably a heatable salt bath; and/or a cooling device, preferably a water bath” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the claim requires the heating device or the cooling device to be the “preferred” components or if this is merely a preference. Further, claims 6 and 7 depend from claim 5 and recites the heating device or the cooling device being the “preferred” components. For the purpose of examination, this claim will be interpreted as the shaping took includes a heating device and/or a cooling device. Claims 6 and 7 depend from claim 5 and fail to clarify the indefinite language.
Further, claims 5, 6 and 7 each recite the cooling device or heating device being “a water bath” or “a heatable salt bath” which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if a bath is included on the shaping tool or if a separate bath is used to heat or cool the shaping tool or workpiece. For the purpose of examination, these phrases will be interpreted as the cooling device includes water and the heating device includes heatable salts, i.e., the devices are on the shaping tool and are not a separate bath.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,128,146 B2 to Baugh in view of US 2013/0067907 A1 to Greene.
Regarding claim 1, Baugh teaches a shaping tool A (Figs. 1-2; Abstract), having:
a traversing tube (Figs. 1-2; Col. 2, Lns. 51-61; the traversing tube is the walls forming and surrounding the passage 14, as shown in Fig. 1), wherein
disks 32, 60 are arranged on the traversing tube at predetermined axial distances (Figs. 1-2; Col. 2, Lns. 51-66 and Col. 4, Lns. 27-63; swage anchor 32 and swages 60 are disk shaped components arranged on the tube),
expansion wires or expansion elements 40, 42, 56, 58 are stretched between the disks 32, 60 (Figs. 1-3; Col. 2, Ln. 62 through Col. 3, Ln. 2, Col. 3, Lns. 6-25 and Col. 4, Lns. 27-32; swage segments 40, 42, 56, 58 are expansion elements that are positioned between the anchor 32 and swages 60, i.e., stretched out), and wherein
the expansion wires or expansion elements 40, 42, 56, 58 stretched between the disks 32, 60 form diameters in order to arrange a shape memory workpiece circumferentially thereon (Figs. 1-3; Col. 3, Lns. 6-25; the swage segments are arranged between the disk to shape a workpiece placed thereon).
Baugh fails to explicitly teach the shaping tool is for shaping a shape memory workpiece and a guide element with the transversing tube movably arranged on the guide element. Baugh teaches that the shaping tool is connected to a driving mechanism (Col. 51-54), but is silent regarding the driving mechanism.
Greene teaches it is known to use shaping tools for shaping a shape memory workpiece (Abstract; Fig. 4), and teaches the shaping tool comprising a guide element 418 with the transversing tube 402 movably arranged on the guide element 418 (Fig. 4; Para. [0038]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the shaping tool of Baugh to shape a shape memory workpiece as taught by Greene as the shaping tool of Baugh allows for incremental expansion to form a shape memory workpiece that is otherwise expensive to manufacture (Greene, Paras. [0001]-[0002]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the driving mechanism in the shaping tool of Baugh with the driving element (i.e., guide element 418 that is pulled to drive the mandrel) of Greene as those components and their functions were well known in the art and a person of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted each of these known elements for another with the predictable result of moving the shaping tool to assist in the shaping process.
Regarding claim 2, modified Baugh teaches the shaping tool for shaping a shape memory workpiece according to claim 1 (Figs. 1-3), wherein the shaping tool has a receiving area for arranging thereon a shape memory workpiece having a first diameter (Figs. 2 and 5 shows the area through which the shaping tool moves to engage a workpiece with a first diameter, and this claim is interpreted as the receiving area is an area outside of the shaping tool that the transversing tube is configured to move through to engage workpiece as discussed in the 112 rejection above), and wherein
the traversing tube 14 is configured to be moved relative to the receiving area by means of an actuator, so that the shape memory workpiece can be passed by the disks 32, 60 in the receiving area (Figs. 2 and 5; Col. 2, Lns. 51-61; the shaping tool including the transversing tube is moved relative to the area in which the workpiece is positioned to shape it).
Regarding claim 3, modified Baugh teaches the shaping tool for shaping a shape memory workpiece according to claim 1 (Figs. 1-3), wherein the disks 32, 60 are shaped such that the shaping tool is configured to expand the shape memory workpiece by moving the traversing tube along the guide element (Figs. 1-3 and 5; Col. 3, Lns. 6-25; modified Baugh includes the guide element of Greene to move the shaping tool, and, as shown in Figs. 1-3 and 5, the disks 32, 60 shape the workpiece as they are moved into the workpiece).
Regarding claim 4, modified Baugh teaches the shaping tool for shaping a shape memory workpiece according to claim 1 (Figs. 1-3), wherein the disks 32, 60 have sliding grooves along their circumference (Figs. 1-3; Col. 2, Ln. 62 through Col. 3, Ln. 2 and Col. 4, Lns. 27-33; the expanding elements 40, 42, 56, 58 are each connected to openings, i.e., grooves, that extend to the exterior, i.e., circumference, of anchor 32 or swages 60), wherein an expansion wire 40, 42, 56, 58 is slidably guided by the respective disk 32, 60 along each sliding groove (Figs. 1-3; Col. 2, Ln. 62 through Col. 3, Ln. 2 and Col. 4, Lns. 27-33; the T-shaped openings of the expanding elements 40, 42, 56, 58 are slidably guided into the openings on the anchor 32 or swage 60, and it is noted that the segments 40, 42, 56, 58 are interpreted as expansion wires as they are thread like structures extending between the swages and anchors), and wherein each expansion wire 40, 42, 56, 58 is preferably arranged in the respective sliding groove such that it projects radially outward with respect to the disk in the sliding groove of which the expansion wire is guided (Figs. 1-3 and 5 show that the expanding elements 40, 42, 56, 58 are positioned to project radially outward).
Regarding claim 5, modified Baugh teaches the shaping tool for shaping a shape memory workpiece according to claim 1 (Figs. 1-3).
Baugh fails to explicitly teach a heating device, preferably a heatable salt bath; and/or a cooling device, preferably a water bath.
Greene teaches a shaping tool including a heating device, preferably a heatable salt bath (Para. [0043]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shaping tool of Baugh to include the heating device of Greene so that the workpiece and shaping tool may be maintained at an optimal temperature to perform the shaping process.
Regarding claim 6, modified Baugh teaches the shaping tool for shaping a shape memory workpiece according to claim 5 (Figs. 1-3), wherein the heating device is a heatable salt bath (Greene, Para. [0043]; modified Baugh includes the heatable salts of Green as a heating device).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baugh in view of Greene in further view of US 3,754,720 to Gross.
Regarding claim 5, modified Baugh teaches the shaping tool for shaping a shape memory workpiece according to claim 1 (Figs. 1-3).
Baugh fails to explicitly teach the shaping tool having a heating device, preferably a heatable salt bath; and/or a cooling device, preferably a water bath.
Gross teaches a shaping tool (Abstract, Fig. 1) including a cooling device, preferably a water bath (Col. 5, Lns. 42-63).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shaping tool of Baugh to include the cooling device of Gross so that the shaping tool and the workpiece may be maintained at an optimal temperature while the shaping process is being performed.
Regarding claim 7, modified Baugh teaches the shaping tool for shaping a shape memory workpiece according to claim 5 (Figs. 1-3), wherein the cooling device is a water bath (Gross, Col. 5, Lns. 42-63; modified Baugh includes the cooling device of Gross, which teaches the cooling device uses a water bath, i.e., cooling water moving through the tool, to cool the tool).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2013/0305512 A1 (Figs. 4-16) and US 2009/0282669 A1 (Figs. 3-5) each teach a shaping tool including expanding wires forming a diameter to shape a workpiece.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725