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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 in the reply filed on December 17, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be a serious search and/or examination burden because the overlap between the subject matter recited in claims 1 and 9. This is not found persuasive because while claim 9 of Group II may contain some overlap to claim 1 of Group I, independent claim 8 and dependent claims 10-17 do not have any overlap and appear to be the novelty of the invention of claim 8. Additionally the vast majority of the claimed subject matter in the method would require a search different from the search required for apparatus claims 1-7.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is suggested to amend the limitation “to mate a with a corresponding receiving end” to read as “to mate with a corresponding receiving end”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 and 21-23 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.
With regards to claim 1, the claim states “through engagement by the tool holder of respective faces defined by the faceted cross-sectional profile”, it is unclear what the limitation “respective faces” is referring to, i.e. are these faces of the cross-sectional profile of the proximal end of the die or faces of the tool holder. Clarification and/or correction is required. For examination purposes the limitation is being interpreted as: through engagement with faces of the tool holder defined by the faceted cross-sectional profile.
With regards to claim 2, the claim states “with a receiving end of the tool holder”, it is unclear if this limitation is intending to refer to the same receiving end of the tool holder set forth in claim 1 or if it is intending to set forth an additional receiving end. Clarification and/or correction is required. For examination purposes the limitation is being interpreted as referring to the receiving end recited in claim 1.
With regards to claim 3, the claim states “wherein the receiving end of the tool holder defines a socket configured to mate…” this renders the claim indefinite since it appears to be further defining an element that is not positively recited as a part of the tool assembly. Specifically, the tool holder is set forth within an intended function recitation “to make with a corresponding receiving end of a tool holder” in claim 1 and not as a structural element of the tool assembly. For examination purposes the claimed subject matter is being interpreted as functional language.
With regards to claims 21-23, the claims appear to be further defining the material, however this renders the claim indefinite since the claims are further defining an element not positively recited within the claim. Specifically, the material is recited within a functional recitation in claim 1 and is not a structural element of the tool assembly. For examination purposes the claimed subject matter is being interpreted as functional language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eller et al (US 2021/0252632).
In reference to claim 1, Eller et al discloses a tool assembly for friction extrusion, the tool assembly comprising:
a friction extrusion die (420) comprising
a distal end defining at least one topographical ridge or groove feature (spiral scroll) [see paragraph 0060; figure 6] to induce plasticization of a material in response to an axial force and a rotational force applied by the distal face to the material, the friction extrusion die defining a central passage (416a) to carry an extrude (20) of the material in a proximal direction in response to the applied axial and rotational forces; and
a proximal end defining a faceted cross-sectional profile [see figure 7; protrusions extending from die toward tool holder 114] to mate with a corresponding receiving end of a tool holder (114), the faceted cross-sectional profile sized and shaped to receive the rotational force through engagement with faces of the tool holder defined by the faceted cross-sectional profile [see paragraph 0046].
In reference to claim 2, the faceted cross-sectional profiled of the proximal end of the friction extrusion die is configured to mate with a receiving end of the tool holder [see figure 7].
In reference to claim 3, as best understood, the faceted cross-sectional profile of the proximal end of the friction extrusion die is capable of mating with a defined socket of the receiving end of the tool holder, wherein the respective inward-facing faces of the socket extend inward toward a longitudinal central axis of the socket to provide the engagement by the tool holder of the respective faces of defined by the faceted cross-sectional profile.
In reference to claim 4, Eller et al further discloses vertices of the respective faces defined by the faceted cross-sectional profile extend outward away from a longitudinal central axis to enable the engagement by the tool holder of the respective faces, as seen in figure 7.
In reference to claim 6, Eller et al further discloses the faceted cross-sectional profile is defined by an outer surface of the proximal end of the friction extrusion die, as seen in figure 7.
In reference to claim 7, the outer surface of the proximal end of the friction extrusion die defines a protrusion with the faceted cross-sectional profile, as seen in figure 7.
In reference to claim 21, the tool assembly is capable of applying the axial force and the rotational force, via the distal face of the friction extrusion die, to the material that is an iron feedstock including one or more non-ferritic elements to generate an iron alloy extrudate.
In reference to claim 22, the iron feedback has been generated from iron ore, the iron feedback comprising iron pellets, and the iron pellets being at least 70 weight percent iron.
In reference to claim 23, the iron alloy extrudate is as high strength sponge iron having at least one of a yield strength within a range of 40 to 50 kilo-pounds per square inch (ksi) at room temperature or a hardness within a range of 300 to 400 Vickers Pyramid Number (HV).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eller et al.
In reference to claim 5, Eller et al discloses the faceted cross-sectional profile is curved. Eller et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the faceted cross-sectional profile is polygonal. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the faceted cross-sectional profile to be polygon, i.e. have the outer surfaces of the bosses be straight rather than curved, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker to select a known shape on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of mechanical efficiency [see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Debra Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)272-1904. 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, Chris Templeton can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Debra M Sullivan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725