DETAILED ACTION
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 of Group I (Claims 1-6) in the reply filed on June 4th, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Group II (Claims 7-10) and Group 3 (Claims 11-13) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on April 3rd, 2024 and April 10th, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Method of controlling a superplastic forming process”
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Line 10: “detecting the gas a pressure of gas” should read --detecting a gas pressure of gas--
Claim 2, Line 2: “gas supplied to the SEQ” should read --gas supplied to the SFO--
Claim 2 and 5-6, Line 1: “The method as claimed in claim 1 wherein” should read -- The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein--
Claims 3-4, Line 1: “The method as claimed in claim 2 wherein” should read -- The method as claimed in claim 2, wherein--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 are 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 detected supply-pressure" in Line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-6 are equally rejected due to dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the detected forming pressure" in Line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitations “detected pressure of gas” in Lines 1-2 and “detected forming pressure” in Line 2. These limitations are indistinct because they fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim which detected pressure gas and detected forming pressure is referred to, whether the previously detected pressure of gas and detected forming pressure previously recited in Claim 1 is being referenced, or additional detected pressure of gas and detected forming pressure are introduced.
Claim 3 recites the limitations “a forming pressure sensor” in Line 2. This limitation is indistinct because it fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim which forming pressure sensor is referred to, whether the previously forming pressure sensor previously recited in Claim 1 is being referenced, or an additional forming pressure sensor introduced.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryzer (US10875072B2), hereinafter Ryzer in view of Xu, S., “Experimental Investigation of a Bi-Stable Supersonic Fluidic Oscillator”, M.A., Sc. Thesis, Mechanical Engineering, 11 January 2018, University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada, hereinafter “Xu”.
Regarding Claim 1, Ryzer discloses a method of controlling a superplastic forming process (Column 2, Lines 7-8) wherein a sheet of material (Fig. 3, Element 22) is subjected to superplastic forming (Column 2, Lines 7-16) while retained within a chamber (Fig. 3, Element 24) of a superplastic forming apparatus (Fig. 3, Element 10) having a supersonic fluidic oscillator (Fig. 3, Elements 18 and 40; Column 5, Lines 54-55) in communication therewith (Figs. 4a-4d; Column 4, Lines 29-32; Claim 1), the method comprising: with a supply pressure sensor (Fig. 3, Element 28) detecting a gas pressure of gas supplied to the SFO (Column 3, Lines 47-49) and transmitting the detected supply pressure (Column 4, Lines 36-43) to a pressure controller (Fig. 3, Element 30), with a forming pressure sensor (Fig. 3, Element 16), detecting the forming pressure within the chamber(Column 4, Lines 33-36) and transmitting the detected forming pressure (Column 4, Lines 36-43) to the pressure controller.
While Ryzer discloses a method of operating the pressure controller to maintain the gas-pressure of gas supplied to the SFO in a manner that maintains a ratio of detected supply-pressure of gas supplied to the SFO to the detected forming pressure (Figs. 9A-9C; Column 4, Lines 28-43; Column 5, Lines 4-14; Column 5, Line 54-Column 6, Line 2) and cause the SFO to generate continuous, uninterrupted, gas oscillations (Column 7, Lines 17-27), Ryzer fails to disclose maintaining the ratio of the detected supply-pressure of gas supplied to the SFO to the detected forming pressure between the determined maximum limit and the minimum limit.
Nonetheless, Xu teaches wherein stable oscillations only occur over a certain range of supply pressures (Page 52, Lines 10-16). Xu further teaches wherein the supply pressure range for stable oscillation ranges from from 0.23MPa (minimum limit) to 0.43MPa (maximum limit) (Page 52, Lines 10-16).
Ryzer and Xu are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of supersonic fluidic oscillators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Xu into the method of controlling a superplastic forming process disclosed by Ryzer and determine a maximum limit and a minimum limit for a ratio of a supply pressure applied to the SFO related to a forming pressure within the chamber of the superplastic forming apparatus, wherein the application of supply pressure to the SFO in a manner that maintains the ratio between the maximum limit and the minimum limit causes the SFO to generate continuous, uninterrupted, gas oscillations and , and operating the pressure controller to maintain the gas-pressure of gas supplied to the SFO in a manner that maintains the ratio of the detected supply-pressure of gas supplied to the SFO to the detected forming pressure between the maximum limit and the minimum limit so that the supply pressure of gas supplied to the SFO is maintained between the certain ranges of pressure that results in stable oscillations (Page 52, Lines 10-16).
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art combination of Ryzer and Xu renders the method as claimed in claim 1 unpatentable as described above.
The prior art combination of Ryzer and Xu further teaches wherein a series of ratios of detected pressure of gas supplied to the SFO to detected forming pressure for increasing degrees of forming pressure (Ryzer - Column 4, Lines 28-48; Ryzer- Figs. 8-9A-C), and that lie between the maximum limit and the minimum limit (Xu - Page 52, Lines 10-16), are predetermined (Ryzer - Column 4, Lines 28-48), the method further comprising operating the pressure controller to achieve the predetermined ratios during the superplastic forming process (Ryzer - Column 4, Lines 28-48; Ryzer- Figs. 9A-C).
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art combination of Ryzer and Xu renders the method as claimed in claim 2 unpatentable as described above.
The prior art combination of Ryzer and Xu further teaches wherein the superplastic forming apparatus (Ryzer - Fig. 3, Element 10) is a single chamber apparatus (Ryzer - Fig. 3, Element 24) having a forming pressure sensor (Ryzer - Fig. 3, Element 16) detecting the forming pressure within the single chamber (Ryzer - Column 4, Lines 33-36) and transmitting the detected forming pressure to the pressure controller (Fig. 3, Element 30 ) (Ryzer - Column 4, Lines 36-43).
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art combination of Ryzer and Xu renders the method as claimed in claim 2 unpatentable as described above.
The prior art combination of Ryzer and Xu fails to teach wherein the superplastic forming apparatus is a dual chamber apparatus having two forming chambers, each forming chamber having its own dedicated forming pressure sensor, the method comprising detecting the forming pressure within each pressure chamber and transmitting the detected forming pressures to the pressure controller.
Nonetheless, in a different embodiment, Ryzer teaches wherein the superplastic forming apparatus (Ryzer - Fig. 6, Element 110) is a dual chamber apparatus (Ryzer - Fig. 6) having two forming chambers (Ryzer - Fig. 6, Elements 122 and 124), each forming chamber having its own dedicated forming pressure sensor (Ryzer - Fig. 6, Element 16), the method comprising detecting the forming pressure within each pressure chamber (Column 4, Lines 28-36) and transmitting the detected forming pressures to the pressure controller (Column 4, Lines 36-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate these additional teachings of Ryzer wherein the superplastic forming apparatus is a dual chamber apparatus having two forming chambers, each forming chamber having its own dedicated forming pressure sensor, the method comprising detecting the forming pressure within each pressure chamber and transmitting the detected forming pressures to the pressure controller into the method disclosed by Ryzer and modified by Xu for forming dual parts (Column 3, Lines 55-57).
Regarding Claim 5, the prior art combination of Ryzer and Xu renders the method as claimed in claim 1 unpatentable as described above.
The prior art combination of Ryzer and Xu further teaches wherein the ratio of the detected pressure of gas supplied to the SFO to the detected forming pressure is maintained constant (Column 7, Lines 17-21), resulting in a constant frequency of oscillation of the SFO (Column 7, Lines 17-21).
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art combination of Ryzer and Xu renders the method as claimed in claim 1 unpatentable as described above.
The prior art combination of Ryzer and Xu further teaches wherein the ratio of the detected pressure of gas supplied to the SFO to the detected forming pressure is progressively adjusted (Column 7, Lines 22-25), resulting in constant amplitude or desired amplitude and frequency of oscillation of the SFO (Column 7, Lines 22-25).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US3451411A - Pressure responsive oscillator for obtaining indications of the ratio between two pressures
US5893383A - Method for using a fluidic oscillator to produce transient over-pressure pulses
US4233831A - Pressure controlled superplastic forming
GB1587713A - Pressure ranges for fluidic oscillator
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALONDRA MICHELLE ORTIZ-ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9539. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5PM ET.
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.
/A.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3725 /Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights