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 without traverse of 1-10 and 14-20 in the reply filed on 12/09/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1, 8-10, 14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Denison (US20140102159A1).
Regarding claim 1, Denison discloses a method for solid phase processing (SPP) of a billet or other feedstock abstract and paragraphs 0032-0068), the method comprising:
providing relative rotation and translation between an extrusion die (figs.1 and 13: (18)) and a feedstock (fig.13: (17)), the die including an extrusion aperture (figs.1 and 10: (11)) through which a tapered mandrel (figs.1 and 13: (10)) extends (paragraphs 0045 and 0066-0070);
generating a first extrudate portion via the aperture, a first outer dimension of the first extrudate portion established by an inner dimension of the aperture (see fig.13 below), and
a first inner dimension (see fig.13 below) of the first extrudate portion established by an outer dimension of the mandrel; and
adjusting an axial position of the tapered mandrel, relative to a face of the die, during the providing the relative rotation and translation to generate a second extrudate portion (fig.13: (53)) having a second inner dimension (fig.13: (d3)) that is different from the first inner dimension (see fig.13 below) of the first extrudate portion to thereby vary a wall thickness between the first extrudate portion and the second extrudate portion (see fig.13 below) (paragraphs 0040, 0045 and 0066-0070).
PNG
media_image1.png
646
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Denison discloses wherein adjusting the axial position of the tapered mandrel includes retracting the tapered mandrel an opposite direction of the extrusion (paragraphs 0040).
Regarding claim 9, Denison discloses axially advancing, following the retracting of the tapered mandrel in an opposite direction of the extrusion, the tapered mandrel toward the extrusion die and in a direction of the extrusion, the axially advancing performed during the providing relative rotation and translation (paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 10, Denison discloses placing the tapered mandrel into the extrusion aperture, including axially advancing the tapered mandrel in a direction of the extrusion, such that a maximum outer diameter of the mandrel is disposed within the aperture and at the face of the extrusion die (fig.13, paragraphs 0040, 0045 and 0066-0070).
Regarding claim 14, Denison discloses a system for solid phase processing (SPP) of a billet or other feedstock (abstract and paragraphs 0032-0068), the system comprising:
an extrusion die (figs.1 and 13: (18)) including: a die face configured to have relative rotational motion relative to a feedstock material (fig.13: (17)) (paragraphs 0045 and 0066-0070); and
a die orifice (figs.1 and 10: (11)) arranged to establish an outer dimension of an extrudate tubing portion (fig.13: the portion of the element (17) that having (d2));
a first driver configured to apply an axial extrusion force to drive the feedstock material and the die face together (figs.1-2, 12-13; paragraphs 0009, 0040 and 0065-0066: adjust the position of the mandrel carriage and the mandrel bar; advance the mandrel bar into the die (18) “corresponding to the first driver”), during the relative rotational motion (paragraph 0040);
a tapered mandrel (figs.1 and 11-13: (10)) extending through the die orifice and slidingly translatable therethrough, the tapered mandrel configured to establish an inner dimension (fig.13: (d1)) of an extrudate tubing; and
a system controller configured to establish or adjust the rotation of the die face relative to the feedstock material and contemporaneously establish or adjust an axial position of the tapered mandrel (paragraphs 0040, 0056 and 0061), relative to a face of the die modulate an extrusion aperture (fig.13: the aperture of the element (17)) defined between the die orifice and the tapered mandrel to thereby vary a wall thickness between a first extrudate portion (see fig.13 above) and a second extrudate portion (fig.13: (53)) (fig.13, paragraphs 0040, 0045 and 0066-0070).
Regarding claim 19, Denison discloses wherein the system controller is configured to retract the tapered mandrel an opposite direction of the extrusion (paragraphs 0040).
Regarding claim 20, Denison discloses wherein the system controller is configured to axially advance, following the retracting of the tapered mandrel in an opposite direction of the extrusion, the tapered mandrel toward the extrusion die and in a direction of the extrusion (paragraph 0040).
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denison (US20140102159A1).
Regarding claims 6-7, Denison does not disclose wherein the second extrudate portion has an outer dimension that is within 2% of an outer dimension of the first extrudate portion; and wherein the second extrudate portion is deposited from the extrusion die including a tubing wall thickness with a value greater than 150% a wall tubing wall thickness of the first extrudate portion.
However, Denison discloses adjusting an axial position of the tapered mandrel, relative to a face of the die, during the providing the relative rotation and translation to generate a second extrudate portion (fig.13: (53)) having a second inner dimension (fig.13: (d3)) that is different from the first inner dimension (see fig.13 above) of the first extrudate portion to thereby vary a wall thickness between the first extrudate portion and the second extrudate portion (fig.13: (53)) (paragraphs 0040, 0045 and 0066-0070);
Further, choosing the dimensions of the produced part is known in art and a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on the general design and the required dimensions of the parts as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the dimensions of the produced part as desired, including wherein the second extrudate portion has an outer dimension that is within 2% of an outer dimension of the first extrudate portion; and wherein the second extrudate portion is deposited from the extrusion die including a tubing wall thickness with a value greater than 150% a wall tubing wall thickness of the first extrudate portion; in order to obtain a produced part with specific dimensions as desired.
Regarding claims 17-18, Denison does not disclose wherein the system is configured to extrude the first and second extrudate portions such that the second extrudate portion has an outer dimension that is within 2% of an outer dimension of the first extrudate portion; and wherein the system is configured to extrude the first and second extrudate portions such that the second extrudate portion is deposited from the extrusion die including a tubing wall thickness with a value greater than 150% a wall tubing wall thickness of the first extrudate portion.
However, Denison discloses a system controller configured to establish or adjust the rotation of the die face relative to the feedstock material and contemporaneously establish or adjust an axial position of the tapered mandrel (paragraphs 0040, 0056 and 0061), relative to a face of the die modulate an extrusion aperture (fig.13: the aperture of the element (17)) defined between the die orifice and the tapered mandrel to thereby vary a wall thickness between a first extrudate portion (see fig.13 above) and a second extrudate portion (fig.13: (53)) (fig.13, paragraphs 0040, 0045 and 0066-0070);
Further, choosing the dimensions of the produced part is known in art and a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on the general design and the required dimensions of the parts as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the dimensions of the produced part as desired, including wherein the system is configured to extrude the first and second extrudate portions such that the second extrudate portion has an outer dimension that is within 2% of an outer dimension of the first extrudate portion; and wherein the system is configured to extrude the first and second extrudate portions such that the second extrudate portion is deposited from the extrusion die including a tubing wall thickness with a value greater than 150% a wall tubing wall thickness of the first extrudate portion; in order to obtain a produced part with specific dimensions as desired.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denison (US20140102159A1) in view of Toyotake (US20100037976A1).
Regarding claims 17-18, Denison does not disclose an extrudate compressor configured to compress at least part of the first and second extrudate portions to reduce a difference in wall thickness therebetween; and wherein the extrudate compressor includes a rolling mill.
Toyotake teaches an extrudate compressor configured to compress to reduce a wall thickness therebetween; and wherein the extrudate compressor includes a rolling mill (fig.8, paragraphs 0151-0152 and 0165).
Therefore, 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 apparatus of Denison to have extrudate compressor includes a rolling mill as taught by Toyotake, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]. Thereby having an extrudate compressor configured to compress at least part of the first and second extrudate portions to reduce a difference in wall thickness therebetween; and wherein the extrudate compressor includes a rolling mill.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the closet prior arts are Coleman (US4711684A), however in the opinion of the Examiner that the arts of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitation of “slicing the first and second extrudate portions, lengthwise; and compressing at least part of each of the lengthwise-sliced first and second extrudate portions to reduce a difference in wall thickness therebetween” in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claim 2 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3-5 are depended from claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725