DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1-14-2026 has been entered.
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) 12-14 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al. (3,893,322) in view of Hunter (4,297,868). Campbell discloses a method of providing a tube (10) comprising forming a groove (between tube ends 12; col. 2, lines 55-56) in the tube (10), the groove including structuring comprising a knurl pattern (knurled area, Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 2-4) with the knurl pattern further formed into a fin structuring (finned area; Fig. 1). The knurl and fin structuring is formed exclusively within the groove between the tube ends (12). Campbell does not disclose coating of the tube interior. Hunter teaches that a groove (33) is formed in a metal tube (25) prior to coating the tube (col. 5, lines 58-64). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to coat the inner surface of the metal tube of Campbell as taught by Hunter in order to protect the interior of the tube as liquid flows through it.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Campbell discloses that at least one driven roller (26; Fig. 4) is driven by tool arbors (18,20,22) and a cam (32) to deform the outer surface of the tube (10) toward the inner surface of the tube (col. 3, lines (col. 3, lines 21-23). Regarding claim 16, Campbell discloses that a width of the peripheral groove (left to right between tube ends 12; Fig. 1) is greater than a width of the driven roller (Fig. 4) since the tube moves to form the groove along the tube. Regarding claims, 17 and 18, Campbell discloses that the inner surface of the tube is smooth (tube wall; Fig. 2) and Hunter teaches coating the inner surface of the metal tube (25; col. 5, lines 58-64).
Claim(s) 12-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takehashi et al. (4,715,436) in view of Hunter (4,297,868). Takehashi discloses (col. 2, lines 41-50) that a groove which is deformed into an outer wall surface (10) of a tube (1) has a shaped structuring (3; col. 2, lines 45-50) formed exclusively within the groove, wherein the structuring is formed on an outer surface of the tube by groove forming rollers (Fig. 1a) including a roller (2) having the structuring (4). Takehashi discloses (Figs. 4a,4b) that the structuring exclusively within the groove is a shaped structuring in a continuous pattern of interconnected structures (5; Fig. 4a) or spaced structuring (3) in (col. 4, lines 14-25). Takehashi does not disclose coating of the tube interior. Hunter teaches that a groove (33) is formed in a metal tube (25) prior to coating the tube (col. 5, lines 58-64). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to coat the inner surface of the metal tube of Takehashi as taught by Hunter in order to protect the interior of the tube as liquid flows through it.
Regarding claims 13-14 and 16, Takehashi discloses that the knurling tool comprises pressing rollers that are driven on a rest (Fig. 1A) to move along the tube while pressing the tube from the outer surface toward the inner surface (col. 6, lines 6-7) during groove forming (col. 5, lines 30-33) and to form the shaped groove structuring (3) with the knurling roller (2) being a structure forming roller for forming the structuring within the groove.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al. (3,893,322) in view of Hunter (4,297,868) and further in view of Birkestrand (4,210,008). Campbell discloses that the roll shaped mandrel (14) is used as a backup on an inner surface of the tube (10) during forming but does not recite that the mandrel is an idler roller. Birkestrand teaches a method for roll grooving (col. 2, lines 36-43) with rolls (16,17) which have a complementary protrusion bead and recess for roll grooving a tube (18), the machine including a first rotationally driven, outer roll (16) which is located exterior of the tube (18) and a second idler roll (17) which is located interior of the tube (18). Birkestrand teaches relative pressing of the rollers (16,17; col. 2, lines 28-31) with a pressing device (15) which moves the idler roll (17) relative to the driven roll (16). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the mandrel roll of Campbell to be an idle roller as taught by Birkestrand so as to press against the inner tube surface as the groove is being formed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Benard (4,514,900) discloses a knurling roller (148) which is configured to form a single structuring (knurled pattern) exclusively within a peripheral groove (124; Fig. 10) between the tube fins (36) on an outer surface of a tube (24) which has an internal surface (Fig. 10). The peripheral groove (124) is provided on an outer surface of the tube (24) with a knurling rolling tool (148; Fig. 6; col. 7, lines 20-30) which is configured to depress and deform the peripheral groove surface (col. 8, lines 33-37) to produce the structuring by knurling the upper surface of the peripheral groove (124).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD THOMAS TOLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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 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.
/EDWARD T TOLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725