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 .
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.
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.
The term “high frequency” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What makes the frequency high? Is there a specific value one must reach for it to be considered high? The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify.
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, 4-5, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roarty et al. (5,323,42) in view of Gay (2,376,351) and the collective teachings of Yagi (4,087,038) and Staheli et al. (6,957,761).
Regarding claim 1, Roarty discloses a method of manufacturing a monolithic vessel head, comprising: boring (bore 98) at least one penetration in the vessel head (column 7 line 56 to column 8 line 9); and inserting a tube 32 into the at least one penetration (column 7 line 56 to column 8 line 9). Since there is a bore 98, it is the Examiner’s position that the bore was created by boring since a bore is defined as a hole made by or as if by the turning or twisting movement of a tool (Merriam Webster).
Roarty does not specifically disclose forging a vessel head. However, Gay discloses forging a vessel head (page 2, column 1 lines 63-69, claim 5). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to forge the vessel head because forging is known to increase strength and fracture toughness of the workpiece. This would help prevent failure of the vessel.
Roarty discloses welding, but does not disclose using a solid-state joining process. Yagi shows that it is known to friction welding a columnar shaped part 2 into a hole 3 of part 1 (figure 2, column 2 lines 24-43, abstract). Furthermore, Staheli shows that it is known to friction weld a tubular shaped object 50 into a hole 20 of pipe or tube 10 (abstract, figures 1-3, column 5 lines 33-column 11 line 67). This shows that the concept inserting a columnar shaped object into a hole of another component and friction welding (solid-state welding) is known in the art and replacing one welding process with another welding process would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use friction welding as it prevents the need for heat and melting which could cause heat damage to the vessel or tube. Having to heat and melt during other types of welding could also negatively affect the properties and microstructure of the vessel.
Regarding claim 4, Roarty does not specifically disclose calculating forces necessary to insert the tube into the at least one penetration without preheating prior to inserting. However, this is a required and known process for friction welding. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to determine the forces necessary to insert the tube to ensure that the tube is inserted correctly without applying too much force that could damage the tube, but also not too little force that the tube does not get inserted completely. Since Roarty does not disclose pre-heating it is the Examiner’s position that it is not happening.
Regarding claim 5, Roarty does not disclose that calculating forces includes calculating axial and rotational forces. However, this is a required and known process for friction welding. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to determine the forces necessary to friction weld tube to ensure that the tube is welded correctly without applying too much force that could damage the tube, but also not too little force that the tube does create a plasticized joint.
Regarding claim 10, since friction welding is used, it would naturally follow that inserting further includes applying an axial force while rotating the tube.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roarty et al. (5,323,42) in view of Gay (2,376,351) and the collective teachings of Yagi (4,087,038) and Staheli et al. (6,957,761) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huff et al. (2008/0105340A1).
Regarding claim 2, Roarty does not disclose heat treating the vessel head after forging. However, Huff discloses heat treating a pressure vessel after forging in order to develop the required mechanical properties (paragraph 0078). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to heat-treat the vessel head after forging to achieve the desired mechanical properties that are going to be required for the use of the vessel to prevent damage or failure.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roarty et al. (5,323,42) in view of Gay (2,376,351) and the collective teachings of Yagi (4,087,038) and Staheli et al. (6,957,761) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Behnke et al. (5,271,048).
Regarding claim 3, Roarty discloses a bore, but does not disclose counterboring the at least one penetration after boring. However, Behnke discloses a bore and counterbore in a pressure vessel for nozzle insertion (column 2 line 54 to column 3 line 7). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to make the through-holes for the tube based on the desired shape and size needed. Boring and counter-boring are well-known processes for forming holes for specific parts to be inserted.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roarty et al. (5,323,42) in view of Gay (2,376,351) and the collective teachings of Yagi (4,087,038) and Staheli et al. (6,957,761) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hartman et al. (6,857,553).
Roarty does not disclose that the solid-state joining process is a friction hydropillar process. However, Hartman discloses that known friction welding processes include hydropillar friction welding (column 6 lines 12-40). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a well-known friction welding process such has hydropillar friction welding because it creates a strong joint low heat impact and good mechanical properties.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roarty et al. (5,323,42) in view of Gay (2,376,351) and the collective teachings of Yagi (4,087,038) and Staheli et al. (6,957,761) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ferte et al. (5,240,167).
Regarding claim 7, Roarty does not disclose preheating prior to inserting. However, Ferte discloses pre-heating metal that is to be friction welded together with an induction heater (column 3 lines 45-57). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to pre-heat the vessel prior to welding to power of the drive motor used (column 3 lines 45-57) in the welding to prevent over heating of the drive and prevent damage to the motor.
Roarty does not disclose including calculating forces necessary to insert the tube into the at least one penetration with preheating prior to inserting. However, this is a required and known process for friction welding. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to determine the forces necessary to insert the tube to ensure that the tube is inserted correctly without applying too much force that could damage the tube, but also not too little force that the tube does not get inserted completely.
Regarding claim 8, Roarty does not disclose calculating forces includes calculating axial and rotational forces. However, this is a required and known process for friction welding. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to determine the forces necessary to friction weld tube to ensure that the tube is welded correctly without applying too much force that could damage the tube, but also not too little force that the tube does create a plasticized joint.
Regarding claim 9, Roarty does not disclose preheating the vessel head using high frequency induction heating prior to inserting. However, Ferte discloses pre-heating metal that is to be friction welded together with an induction heater (induction heaters have a frequency so the high frequency limitation is met) (column 3 lines 45-57). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to pre-heat the vessel prior to welding to power of the drive motor used in the welding to prevent over heating of the drive and prevent damage to the motor.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roarty et al. (5,323,42) in view of Gay (2,376,351) and the collective teachings of Yagi (4,087,038) and Staheli et al. (6,957,761) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tweddell (1,783,637).
Regarding claim 11, Roarty does not disclose that boring includes using a vertical turning lathe to bore the at least one penetration. However, Tweddell discloses a vertical lathe used for machining large heavy metal pieces (page 1, column 1). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a well-known machine such as a vertical lathe for boring the penetration because Tweddell discloses that it allows for controlling the feed operation and regulates the speed of rotation (page 1, column 1). This allows for the user to control the boring process to achieve the desired penetration.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roarty et al. (5,323,42) in view of Gay (2,376,351) and the collective teachings of Yagi (4,087,038) and Staheli et al. (6,957,761) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Behmlander et al. (2017/0016323A1) and Tweddell (1,783,637).
Regarding claim 12, Roarty does not disclose inserting includes using a vertical turning lathe to apply an axial force and rotate the tube. However, Behmlander discloses friction welding an insert into a base material using a lathe (paragraph 0020). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a lathe as it allows the user to control the speed and force being applied to ensure a proper joint. Behmlander does not disclose a vertical lathe; however; Tweddell discloses a lathe that is vertical (page 1, column 1). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a lathe with a direction that would be suitable for inserting the tube that would allow for easy access and the most control.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roarty et al. (5,323,42) in view of Gay (2,376,351), the collective teachings of Yagi (4,087,038) and Staheli et al. (6,957,761), Huff et al. (2008/0105340A1), and Behnke et al. (5,271,048).
Regarding claim 13, Roarty discloses a method of manufacturing a monolithic vessel head, comprising: boring (bore 98) at least one penetration in the vessel head (column 7 line 56 to column 8 line 9); and inserting a tube 32 into the at least one penetration (column 7 line 56 to column 8 line 9). Since there is a bore 98, it is the Examiner’s position that the bore was created by boring since a bore is defined as a hole made by or as if by the turning or twisting movement of a tool (Merriam Webster).
Roarty does not specifically disclose forging a vessel head. However, Gay discloses forging a vessel head (page 2, column 1 lines 63-69, claim 5). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to forge the vessel head because forging is known to increase strength and fracture toughness of the workpiece. This would help prevent failure of the vessel.
Roarty discloses welding, but does not disclose using a solid-state joining process to join the tube to the vessel head. Roarty discloses welding, but does not disclose using a solid-state joining process. Yagi shows that it is known to friction welding a columnar shaped part 2 into a hole 3 of part 1 (figure 2, column 2 lines 24-43, abstract). Furthermore, Staheli shows that it is known to friction weld a tubular shaped object 50 into a hole 20 of pipe or tube 10 (abstract, figures 1-3, column 5 lines 33-column 11 line 67). This shows that the concept inserting a columnar shaped object into a hole of another component and friction welding (solid-state welding) is known in the art and replacing one welding process with another welding process would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use friction welding as it prevents the need for heat and melting which could cause heat damage to the vessel or tube. Having to heat and melt during other types of welding could also negatively affect the properties and microstructure of the vessel.
Since friction welding is used, it would have been obvious to calculate the forces necessary to insert the tube into the at least one penetration to prevent any damage to the tube caused by too much force, or prevent not enough force which could prevent the tube from being inserted completely into the hole.
Roarty does not disclose heat treating the vessel head. However, Huff discloses heat treating a pressure vessel after forging in order to develop the required mechanical properties (paragraph 0078). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to heat-treat the vessel head after forging to achieve the desired mechanical properties that are going to be required for the use of the vessel to prevent damage or failure.
Roarty discloses a bore, but does not disclose counterboring the at least one penetration after boring. However, Behnke discloses a bore and counterbore in a pressure vessel for nozzle insertion (column 2 line 54 to column 3 line 7). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to make the through-holes for the tube based on the desired shape and size needed. Boring and counter-boring are well-known processes for forming holes for specific parts to be inserted.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roarty et al. (5,323,42) in view of Gay (2,376,351), the collective teachings of Yagi (4,087,038) and Staheli et al. (6,957,761), Huff et al. (2008/0105340A1), and Behnke et al. (5,271,048) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Ferte et al. (5,240,167).
Regarding claim 13, Roarty does not disclose preheating prior to inserting. However, Ferte discloses pre-heating metal that is to be friction welded together with an induction heater (column 3 lines 45-57). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to pre-heat the vessel prior to welding to power of the drive motor used (column 3 lines 45-57) in the welding to prevent over heating of the drive and prevent damage to the motor.
Roarty does not disclose including calculating forces necessary to insert the tube into the at least one penetration with preheating prior to inserting. However, this is a required and known process for friction welding. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to determine the forces necessary to insert the tube to ensure that the tube is inserted correctly without applying too much force that could damage the tube, but also not too little force that the tube does not get inserted completely.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roarty et al. (5,323,42) in view of Gay (2,376,351), the collective teachings of Yagi (4,087,038) and Staheli et al. (6,957,761), Huff et al. (2008/0105340A1), and Behnke et al. (5,271,048) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Tweddell (1,783,637).
Regarding claim 15, Roarty does not disclose that boring includes using a vertical turning lathe to bore the at least one penetration. However, Tweddell discloses a vertical lathe used for machining large heavy metal pieces (page 1, column 1). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a well-known machine such as a vertical lathe for boring the penetration because Tweddell discloses that it allows for controlling the feed operation and regulates the speed of rotation (page 1, column 1). This allows for the user to control the boring process to achieve the desired penetration.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roarty et al. (5,323,42) in view of Gay (2,376,351), the collective teachings of Yagi (4,087,038) and Staheli et al. (6,957,761), Huff et al. (2008/0105340A1), and Behnke et al. (5,271,048) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Behmlander et al. (2017/0016323A1) and Tweddell (1,783,637).
Regarding claim 16, Roarty does not disclose inserting includes using a vertical turning lathe to apply an axial force and rotate the tube. However, Behmlander discloses friction welding an insert into a base material using a lathe (paragraph 0020). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a lathe as it allows the user to control the speed and force being applied to ensure a proper joint. Behmlander does not disclose a vertical lathe; however; Tweddell discloses a lathe that is vertical (page 1, column 1). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a lathe with a direction that would be suitable for inserting the tube that would allow for easy access and the most control.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection provided above. The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Funck reference were persuasive, so a new rejection has been applied above.
The Applicants arguments with respect to the 112 rejection of claim 9 stating that the specification defines high frequency induction heating in paragraph 0037 is not persuasive. Paragraph 0037 states the use of the high frequency generators, but does not define what is meant by “high”. How high does the frequency have to be for it to be considered high? It is considered a relative term and there is no definition in the current specification for “high”. The 112 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN B SAAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6p.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/ERIN B SAAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735