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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "100" and "112" have both been used to designate the riser [see figure 1]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
With regards to claim 1, the claim states “the flow restrictor is structed to be disposed in…the air passage of the cupper”, this renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the phrase “is structured to” is, specifically is it intending to set forth that the flow restrictor is disposed in the air passage or is it intending to set forth that it flow restrictor has the structure that allows for the capability of being in an air passage. It is noted that should the limitation intend to set forth that the flow restrictor is disposed in the air passage, it is noted that the air passage is defined as pertaining to the cupper which is not positively recited structure of the claim. Specifically, the cupper is recited as an intended use for the flow restrictor but is not a required structure.
With regards to claim 2, the claim states “the flow restrictor further comprising a large diameter opening having the first diameter”, this renders the claim indefinite since the first diameter is set forth in claim 1 as a structural element of the cupper and not the flow restrictor, therefore it is unclear how the flow restrictor is now to encompass a structural element of the cupper. Clarification and/or correction is required.
With regards to claims 3-6, the claims state “is structured to be”, this renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what is encompassed within the phrase thereby rendering the metes and bounds indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear if the limitation following the phrase “is structured to be” is required or if the flow restrictor is to have a structural element that allows for the capability of meeting the subsequent limitations. Clarification and/or correction is required.
With regards to claim 4, the claim states “wherein the cupper further includes an adapter disposed between the riser and the die center, wherein the air passage is formed axially through the adapter”, this renders the claim indefinite since it appears to be further defining elements that are not positively recited within the claim. Specifically, the cupper is set forth in the preamble as an intended use for the flow restrictor therefore the cupper is not positively recited structure of the claim and the wherein clause are intending to further limit positively recited structure.
With regards to claim 11, the claim states “structured to” and “is structured to be”, this renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what is encompassed within the phrase thereby rendering the metes and bounds indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear if the limitation following the phrase is required or if it is to have a structural element that allows for the capability of meeting the subsequent limitations. Clarification and/or correction is required.
With regards to claim 12, the claim states “the flow restrictor further comprising a large diameter opening having the first diameter”, this renders the claim indefinite since the first diameter is set forth in claim 11 as a structural element of the cupper and not the flow restrictor, therefore it is unclear how the flow restrictor is now to encompass a structural element of the cupper. Clarification and/or correction is required.
With regards to claim 14, there appears to be insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the ram and the punch die” found in line 2. It is further noted that correcting the antecedent basis would not overcome the indefiniteness since the limitation would still lack any mechanism relationship of the ram and punch die with regards to the previously recited structure of the cupper. For examination purposes the limitation is being interpreted as referring to the riser and die center.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 11 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaminskas (US 4,164,860).
In reference to claim 1, Kaminskas discloses a flow restrictor for a cupper, the cupper having a riser (42) and a die center (66) structured to form a metal blank into a cup, wherein a continuous air passage having a first diameter is formed axially through the riser and the die center and is in fluid communication with a base of the die center [see figure 5], the flow restrictor (76) comprising:
a small diameter passage having a second diameter that is smaller than the first diameter, wherein the flow restrictor (76) is structured to be disposed in and in fluid communication with the air passage of the cupper [see col. 9 lines 21-34].
In reference to claim 3, Kaminskas further discloses the flow restrictor is structured to be disposed in a portion of the air passage formed in the riser or die center, as seen in figure 5.
In reference to claim 4, Kaminskas further discloses the cupper further includes an adapter disposed between the riser and the die center, wherein the air passage is formed axially through the adapter, and wherein the flow restrictor is structed to be disposed in the portion of the air passage formed in the adapter.
In reference to claim 5, Kaminskas further discloses the flow restrictor (76) is structured to be inserted into the air passage, as seen in figure 5.
In reference to claim 6, Kaminskas further discloses the flow restrictor is structured to be retained by a threaded fit, as seen in figure 5.
In reference to claim 11, Kaminskas discloses a cupper comprising
a riser (42),
a die center (66) structured to form a meal blank into a cup,
an air passage (70) having a first diameter formed axially and continuously through the riser and the die center [see figure 5], and is in fluid communication with a base of the die center, the air passage structured to receive a supply of air from an air supply [see col. 9 lines 5-20], and
a flow restrictor (76) including
a small diameter passage having a second diameter that is smaller than the first diameter, wherein the flow restrictor is structured to be disposed in and in fluid communication with the air passage (70) of the cupper [see figure 5; col. 9 lines 21-35].
In reference to claim 13, Kaminskas further discloses the air passage includes a riser air passage formed in the riser and a die center air passage formed in the die center, wherein the flow restrictor is disposed in the riser air passage, as seen in figure 5.
In reference to claim 14, Kaminskas further discloses an adapter disposed between the riser and die center, wherein the air passage is formed axially and continuously through the riser, the adapter, and the die center [it is noted that the adapter is being interpreted as the portion above the die center 66 and the air passage extends all the way through]. wherein the air passage (70) includes a riser air passage formed in the riser, an adapter air passage formed in the adapter, and a die center air passage formed in the die center, and wherein the flow restrictor is disposed in the adapter air passage.
In reference to claim 15, the flow restrictor is an insert (76) in the air passage, as seen in figure 5.
In reference to claim 16, Kaminskas further discloses the flow restrictor is retained in the air passage by a threaded fit, as seen in figure 5.
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.
1. Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaminskas in view of Schommer (US 2015/0115054).
In reference to claims 2 and 12, Kaminskas discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the flow restrictor has a large diameter opening and a transition section extending from the large diameter opening to the small diameter passage.
However, Schommer teaches of a flow restrictor comprising of a small diameter passage (120), a large diameter opening, and a transition section (170) extending from the large diameter opening to the small diameter passage and fluidly coupling the large diameter opening and the small diameter passage, wherein the transition section gradually reduced in diameter from the upstream end to the downstream end [see figure 1A; paragraphs 0027 & 0029].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the flow restrictor of Kaminskas with the flow restrictor, as taught by Schommer, since the simple substitution of one known flow restrictor for another known flow restrictor would yield the predictable results of restricting the flow through the passage.
2. Claim(s) 7-10 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaminskas.
In reference to claims 7-9 and 17-19, Kaminskas further discloses the first diameter is larger than the second diameter but fails to discloses the first diameter is about 0.375 inches and the second diameter is less than or equal to about 0.188 inches or 0.110 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the large diameter be about 0.375 inches and the small diameter be less than or equal to 0.188 inches or 0.110 inches, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation [In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233].
In reference to claims 10 and 20, Kaminskas discloses the flow restrictor is an insert within the air passage. Kaminskas discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the flow restrictor is machined into the air passage.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to machine the flow restrictor within the air passage rather that have it be a separate element, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art [see Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 US 164 (18893]}.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Debra Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)272-1904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4:30pm EST.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Debra M Sullivan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights