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 Objections
Claims 2-13 and 15-19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 2-13, the phrase “An apparatus as claimed” should be changed to “The apparatus as claimed”.
Regarding claims 15-19, the phrase “A method as claimed” should be changed to “The method as claimed”.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase “each extrusion container” should be changed to “each of said extrusion container”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5 and 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 5 and 7 recites the term "a block extruder" which was not described in the specification to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention; the specification does not give any details regarding the term “a block extruder”.
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 1-19 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the axes" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the exit" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-19 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “two or more independent containers” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “two or more independent containers” is the same as or different from “two or more extrusion containers” that recited in claim 1 which claim 4 depends from.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted two or more independent containers” is the same as or different from “two or more extrusion containers” that recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "a block extruder" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “a block extruder”;
the specification does not give any details regarding the term “a block extruder”;
Therefore, the claim is unclear and indefinite; thus, no prior art rejection is provided in this Office Action. Proper clarification is required in the replying to this Office Action.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "a block extruder" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “a block extruder”;
The specification does not give any details regarding the term “a block extruder”;
Therefore, the claim is unclear and indefinite; thus, no prior art rejection is provided in this Office Action for the term "a block extruder". Proper clarification is required in the replying to this Office Action.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the extruded thickness" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 12, the recitation of the claim renders the claim infinite because the claim does not recite any features of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “two or more blocks” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “two or more blocks” is the same as or different from “block” that recited in claim 1 which claim 13 depends from.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “two or more blocks” is the same as “block” that recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “associated rams” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “associated rams” is the same as or different from “one or more rams” that recited in claim 1 which claim 13 depends from.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “associated rams” is the same as or different from “one or more rams” that recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “such that the material is forced” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the material” is the same as or different from “two or more billets of material” that recited in line 3 of the same claim 14; and it is unclear if “the material” is the same as or different from “the pre-heated billets of material” that recited in line 4 of the same claim 14.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “the material” is the same as “the pre-heated billets of material” that recited in line 4 of the same claim 14.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the thickness" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase “two or more blocks” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “two or more blocks” is the same as or different from “block” that recited in claim 1 which claim 19 depends from.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “two or more blocks” is the same as “block” that recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase “extrusion containers” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “extrusion containers” is the same as or different from “two or more extrusion containers” that recited in claim 1 which claim 19 depends from.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “extrusion containers” is the same as “two or more extrusion containers” that recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase “a common die set” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a common die set” is the same as or different from “a die set” that recited in claim 1 which claim 19 depends from.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “a common die set” is the same as “a die set” that recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase “material” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “material” is the same as or different from “a material” that recited in claim 1 which claim 19 depends from.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “material” is the same as “a material” that recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase “several billets” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “several billets” is the same as or different from “wo or more extruded billets” that recited in claim 1 which claim 19 depends from.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted if “several billets” is the same as “wo or more extruded billets” that recited in claim 1.
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 1-3, 8, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao (CN112453091B attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao discloses an apparatus for extruding a material (paragraphs 0001 and 0049-0057), the apparatus comprising:
a block (figs.1-2: (7)) which includes two or more extrusion containers (figs.1-2: (5) and (6)) composed of heat resisting material (paragraph 0047: heating the billet, thus the elements (5) and (6) must be composed of heat resisting material), said containers being arranged to receive billets (figs.1-2: (15) and (16)) of the extruding material;
a die set (figs.1-2: (9) and (12)) arranged downstream of the block including the two or more extrusion containers (figs.1-2); and
one or more rams (figs.1-2: (1) and (2)), wherein the one or more rams are aligned with the axes of the extrusion containers (figs.1-2: (5) and (6)) and are arranged to push the billets of material through the extrusion containers into the die set;
wherein the die set includes an upper die (figs.1-2: (9)) including two or more extrusion channels (figs.1-2: the element (9) having left and right container) for extruding material from each of said extrusion containers, and
a lower die (figs.1-2: (12)) incorporating a welding chamber (figs.1-2: the chamber of the element (12)), wherein two or more extruded billets (figs.1-2: (15) and (16)) from each of said extrusion channels are welded together and passed out through the exit (figs.1-2: see element (13)) of the die set (paragraph 0049).
Regarding claim 2, Zhao discloses in which the extrusion containers (figs.1-2: (5) and (6)) are cylindrical.
Regarding claim 3, Zhao discloses in which the axes (figs.1-2: (5) and (6)) of the extrusion containers are parallel to each other.
Regarding claim 8, Zhao discloses in which the exit of the die set (figs.1-2: (9) and (12)) is arranged to be at an angle between 0 and 90° to the plane of the container axes.
Regarding claim 12, Zhao discloses in which the material to be extruded is selected from metals and alloys, in particular aluminium alloys, magnesium alloys, and steels (paragraphs 0002 and 0049).
Regarding claim 14, Zhao discloses a method of extruding a sheet of material using the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, the method comprising:
pre-heating two or more billets (figs.1-2: (15) and (16)) of material (paragraph 0011);
transferring the pre-heated billets of material to the two or more extrusion containers (figs.1-2: (5) and (6));
pushing the billets through the containers using the rams (figs.1-2: (1) and (2)), such that the material is forced through the extrusion channels in the upper die (figs.1-2: (9));
welding the extruded material in the welding chamber (figs.1-2: the chamber of the element (12)); and
passing the welded material out through the exit (figs.1-2: see element (13)) of the die set.
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.
Claims 7, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN112453091B attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, Zhao does not disclose in which the containers or block extruder are made from hot extrusion tool material and the bolsters are made from cast iron or steel.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Zhao to have in which the containers or block extruder are made from hot extrusion tool material and the bolsters are made from cast iron or steel in order to provide the functionality to act as containers and bolsters. (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 13, Zhao does not disclose in which two or more blocks comprising extrusion containers, and associated rams are arranged to feed into the same die set.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Zhao to add blocks as many as desired, including in which two or more blocks comprising extrusion containers are arranged around a common die set and material is fed to each extrusion container and several billets of material are extruded simultaneously to increase productivity, in order to enhance production capacity. (MPEP 2144.04 VI, B).
Regarding claim 19, Zhao does not disclose in which two or more blocks comprising extrusion containers are arranged around a common die set and material is fed to each extrusion container and several billets of material are extruded simultaneously to increase productivity.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Zhao to add blocks as many as desired, including in which two or more blocks comprising extrusion containers are arranged around a common die set and material is fed to each extrusion container and several billets of material are extruded simultaneously to increase productivity, and associated rams are arranged to feed into the same die set, in order to enhance production capacity. (MPEP 2144.04 VI, B).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN112453091B attached NPL, English Machine translation) in view of Krintzline (US20110061434A1).
Regarding claim, Zha does not explicitly disclose in which the block comprises two or more independent containers which are held in position by bolsters; and in which the bolsters are held by use of hydraulic pressure or other means.
Krintzline teaches an apparatus for extruding a material, the apparatus comprising:
a block comprises a bolster for holding two or more independent containers; and a mean for holding (fig.3 and paragraph 0017-0023).
Both of the prior arts of Zhao and Krintzline are related to an apparatus for extruding a material;
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 Zhao to have the configuration of the bolster as taught by Krintzline, 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 in which the block comprises two or more independent containers which are held in position by bolsters; and in which the bolsters are held by use of hydraulic pressure or other means.
Claims 4-6 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN112453091B attached NPL, English Machine translation) in view of Andre (US20190262878A1).
Regarding claim 9-11, Andre does not disclose rolling stands downstream of the exit of the die set, in order to receive the extruded material and reduce the extruded thickness by hot rolling; one or more quenching baths downstream of the rolling stands; and further rolling stands downstream of the quenching bath for further processing of the extruded material by cold rolling.
Andre teaches an apparatus for extruding a material, the apparatus comprising:
rolling stands downstream of the exit of the die set, in order to receive the extruded material and reduce the extruded thickness by hot rolling; one or more quenching baths downstream of the rolling stands; and further rolling stands downstream of the quenching bath for further processing of the extruded material by cold rolling (fig.1, abstract, paragraphs 0009 and 0033)
Both of the prior arts of Zhao and Andre are related to an apparatus for extruding a material;
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 Zhao to have rolling stands downstream of the exit of the die set, in order to receive the extruded material and reduce the extruded thickness by hot rolling; one or more quenching baths downstream of the rolling stands; and further rolling stands downstream of the quenching bath for further processing of the extruded material by cold rolling as taught by Andre, 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)].
Regarding claim 15-19, Andre does not disclose a step of passing the extruded material through a set of rollers while hot to further reduce the thickness of the sheet; quenching the rolled material; cold rolling the quenched rolled material; and cold or hot stamping the extruded product.
Andre teaches a method for extruding a material, the apparatus comprising:
a step of passing the extruded material through a set of rollers while hot to further reduce the thickness of the sheet; quenching the rolled material; cold rolling the quenched rolled material; and cold or hot stamping the extruded product (fig.1, abstract, paragraphs 0009 and 0033)
Both of the prior arts of Zhao and Andre are related to an apparatus for extruding a material;
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 emthod of Zhao to have a step of passing the extruded material through a set of rollers while hot to further reduce the thickness of the sheet; quenching the rolled material; cold rolling the quenched rolled material; and cold or hot stamping the extruded product as taught by Andre, 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)].
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