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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2026 with respect Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “Paragraph [0040] of Denison, however, addresses positioning of the mandrel bar prior to extrusion, not modulation of the mandrel position during extrusion to produce extrudate portions of different inner dimensions”.
In response to this argument, paragraph 0040 explicitly and clearly discloses “although it will be understood that in certain embodiments the mandrel bar 74 and/or mandrel carriage section 58 may be adjusted during operation”.
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “The tapered region 83 of Denison's mandrel tip serves only to transition the billet from the initial inner diameter to the final inner diameter set by end portion 50; it does not vary the inner dimension of different axial portions of a single extrudate. Put simply, Denison offers no suggestion that such a tapered region 83 could somehow be used to vary such an inner dimension of the final single extrusion product by axial translation of Denison's mandrel, during extrusion”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the final single extrusion product) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, the element (83) having a taper tip, so it causes to vary the inner dimension extrusion product (paragraph 0069 and figs.12-13);
Furthermore, paragraph 0040 of the prior art of Denison explicitly and clearly discloses “although it will be understood that in certain embodiments the mandrel bar 74 and/or mandrel carriage section 58 may be adjusted during operation”.
So, the element (83) is used to vary a wall thickness between the first extrudate portion and the second extrudate portion during extrusion.
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “Element 53 is not a separate axial portion of the extrudate having a different inner dimension from another axial portion of the same extrudate. Denison produces a tube of uniform inner diameter set by the fixed mandrel tip geometry; it does not produce a tube having a first axial portion of one inner dimension followed by a second axial portion of a different inner dimension. The dimensions dl and d3 in Denison FIG. 13 represent, respectively, the initial hollow-core diameter of the billet entering the deformation zone over the mandrel tip and the final inner diameter of the finished tube. They are dimensions of the billet at different points in the extrusion zone at a single instant in time. not dimensions of two axially-separated portions of an extruded product produced sequentially by adjusting the mandrel position during extrusion”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a separate axial portion; and dimensions of two axially-separated portions of an extruded product) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
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
607
796
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights