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 .
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 19-20 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.
Claim 19 is rejected as being indefinite because the location of the “front movable headstock” in line 3 and “rear movable headstock” in line 5 cannot be ascertained. Both headstocks are claimed as being “located between” two structures but the second structure is not claimed. Claim 19 will be examined as not containing a limitation regarding the location of the front movable headstock and the rear movable headstock to advance compact prosecution.
Claim 20 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
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 1-5, 7-13, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0056947 A1 by Lavender, hereinafter “Lavender”, in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,300,378 to Thiruvarudchelvan, hereinafter “Thiruvarudchelvan”, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,789,642 to Nilsson, hereinafter “Nilsson”.
Regarding claim 1, Lavender discloses assembly 100 in Fig. 1 is a device for performing shear-assisted extrusion comprising die tool 2 having scroll face 4 and orifice 8 and front spindle container 22 configured to receive feedstock material billet 5. Paragraph [0017] discloses scroll face 4 of die tool 2 may be stationarily fixed while front spindle container 22 is rotated about its longitudinal axis and simultaneously translated toward die tool 2 to push billet 5 against face 4 to extrude extrusion product 30 through orifice 8.
Lavender does not expressly disclose, from claim 1, front and rear fixed endstocks, front and rear movable headstocks, and a rear spindle. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand die tool 2 would be connected to a fixed endstock and that a movable headstock supports front spindle container 22 as it is translated axially.
In the same field of shear-assisted extrusion machines, Thiruvarudchelvan teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extrude feedstock through two dies supported in rotatable spindles arranged along the longitudinal axis of the extrusion machine. See Fig. 5 and column 4, line 31 through column 5, line 31.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange two of Lavender’s spindle containers 22 along the longitudinal axis of Lavender’s extrusion machine in the same way Thiruvarudchelvan teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Thiruvarudchelvan to the disclosure of Lavender would achieve the predictable result of a shear-assisted extrusion system with front and rear rotatable spindles supported by front and rear movable headstocks.
The prior art reference combination of Lavender in view of Thiruvarudchelvan is silent regarding details of the extrusion machine frame structure. Therefore, the combination does not teach front and rear endstocks with the front and rear movable headstocks being translatable therebetween.
In the same field of extrusion machines, Nilsson teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange a movable headstock (5 in Fig. 1) between fixed front and rear endstocks (2 and 3 in Fig. 1). See annotations to Fig. 1 of Nilsson reproduced below. See at least column 2, lines 12-17.
PNG
media_image1.png
459
1074
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange two of Lavender’s spindle containers 22 along the longitudinal axis of Nilsson’s extrusion machine according to the teaching of Lavender in view of Thiruvarudchelvan to achieve the predictable result of arranging front and rear headstocks supporting front and rear rotatable spindles between front and rear fixed endstocks as Nilsson teaches.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art reference combination of Lavender in view of Thiruvarudchelvan and further in view of Nilsson renders the system of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Nilsson further teaches connecting die tool 21 to the Front Fixed Endstock as annotated above. See column 2, line 35-37.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art reference combination of Lavender in view of Thiruvarudchelvan and further in view of Nilsson renders the system of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Nilsson further teaches comprising:
a plurality of rails (rail rods 4 in Fig. 1; column 2, line 12-17) connected to the front fixed endstock, the rear fixed endstock, the front movable headstock, and the rear movable headstock (rail rods 4 are connected to the Front Fixed Endstock, Rear Fixed Endstock and Movable Headstock as shown in annotated Fig. 1 above), the front movable headstock and the rear movable headstock translatable along the plurality of rails with respect to the front fixed endstock and the rear fixed endstock (the Movable Headstock translates along the rail rods 4 as shown by the progression from Fig. 1 to Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art reference combination of Lavender in view of Thiruvarudchelvan and further in view of Nilsson renders the system of claim 3 unpatentable as explained above. Nilsson further teaches comprising:
a plurality of shafts connected to the front fixed endstock, the rear fixed endstock, the front movable headstock, and the rear movable headstock (col. 2, line 14-17 teaches connecting a number of cylinder shafts to the Movable Headstock to axially move it between the fixed endstocks); and
one or more actuators operable to move the front movable headstock or the rear movable headstock along the plurality of shafts, held in alignment by the plurality of rails (col. 2, line 14-17 teaches operating cylinders are used as actuators to move the Movable Headstock along the plurality of rail rods 4).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art reference combination of Lavender in view of Thiruvarudchelvan and further in view of Nilsson renders the system of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Lavender further discloses a container (22 in Fig. 1) connected to the front spindle and configured to support the feedstock material at least partially therein, the container rotatable with the front spindle (¶[0017] discloses spindle 22 in Fig. 1 supports feedstock material billet 5 that may be rotated as it is pushed against die tool 2).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art reference combination of Lavender in view of Thiruvarudchelvan and further in view of Nilsson renders the system of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Thiruvarudchelvan further teaches connecting a motor to the worms which rotate spindle dies 52 and 54 in Fig. 5. See at least column 3, line 40-44.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art reference combination of Lavender in view of Thiruvarudchelvan and further in view of Nilsson renders the system of claim 5 unpatentable as explained above. Nilsson further teaches die 21 is connected to a rear face of the Front Fixed Endstock yoke 2 by a tooling plate. Thiruvarudchelvan further teaches rotatable spindles hold upstream and downstream tooling plate dies 52 and 54 at their front faces to extrude billet 26.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art reference combination of Lavender in view of Thiruvarudchelvan and further in view of Nilsson renders the system of claim 8 unpatentable as explained above. When the teaching of Nilsson is applied to the disclosure of Lavender by arranging Lavender’s rotatable container in an axially movable headstock taught by Nilsson, Lavender’s die tool 2 in Fig. 1 will be secured to a first tooling plate connected to the rear face of Nilsson’s Front Fixed Endstock yoke 2 in Fig. 1 and Lavender’s container 22 is secured to a second tooling plate as taught by Thiruvarudchelvan that teaches securing dies in rotatable spindles in extrusion machines.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art reference combination of Lavender in view of Thiruvarudchelvan and further in view of Nilsson renders the system of claim 9 unpatentable as explained above. When the teaching of Nilsson is applied to the disclosure of Lavender by arranging two of Lavender’s spindle containers 22 along the longitudinal axis of Nilsson’s machine in replacement of Nilsson’s movable headstock 5, Nilsson’s ram punch 9 will be connected to the third tooling plate on the rear movable headstock to engage the feedstock material to generate the axial extrusion force in the same way Nilsson teaches ram punch 10 applying axial force to billet 22 as it connects through movable headstock 5.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art reference combination of Lavender in view of Thiruvarudchelvan and further in view of Nilsson renders the system of claim 9 unpatentable as explained above. Nilsson’s ram punch 10 in Fig. 1 connects with at least one of the tooling plate connected to one of the movable headstock which support one of Lavender’s spindles 22.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art reference combination of Lavender in view of Thiruvarudchelvan and further in view of Nilsson renders the system of claim 8 unpatentable as explained above. Nilsson further teaches the die tool is securable to the first tooling plate. Fig. 1 of Nilsson teaches opening 42 as the “die” and die 21 as a “first tooling plate” which connects opening 42 to the Front Fixed Endstock yoke 2.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art reference combination of Lavender in view of Thiruvarudchelvan and further in view of Nilsson renders the system of claim 8 unpatentable as explained above. Paragraph [0024] of Lavender discloses billet 5 may be cooled in spindle 22 during extrusion.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art reference combination of Lavender in view of Thiruvarudchelvan and further in view of Nilsson renders the system of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Lavender further discloses spindle 22 in Fig. 1 is axially translates feedstock material billet 5 toward stationarily fixed die 2. When the rotatable spindle of Lavender is incorporated into the Movable Headstock of Nilsson as annotated above, Lavender’s spindle 22 translates with respect to Nilsson’s annotated Front Fixed Endstock yoke 2 and Rear Fixed Endstock yoke 3.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art reference combination of Lavender in view of Thiruvarudchelvan and further in view of Nilsson renders the system of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Lavender further discloses wherein the front spindle (spindle 22 in Fig. 1) is rotatable to rotate the feedstock material (billet 5 in Fig. 1) with respect to the front fixed endstock and the rear fixed endstock (when rotatable container 22 in Fig. 1 of Lavender is incorporated into Nilsson’s extrusion machine as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, Lavender’s spindle 22 rotates billet 5 with respect to Nilsson’s annotated Front Fixed Endstock yoke 2 and Rear Fixed Endstock yoke 3).
Regarding claim 17, the prior art reference combination of Lavender in view of Thiruvarudchelvan and further in view of Nilsson renders the system of claim 16 unpatentable as explained above. When the teaching of Thiruvarudchelvan is applied to the disclosure of Lavender as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, the second, rear spindle of Lavender will be rotatable with respect to the endstocks to create a rotation-induced shear force between feedstock material billet 5 and die tool 2 as Lavender discloses.
Regarding claim 19, Lavender discloses assembly 100 in Fig. 1 is a device for performing shear-assisted extrusion comprising die tool 2 having scroll face 4 and orifice 8 and front spindle container 22 configured to receive feedstock material billet 5. Paragraph [0017] discloses scroll face 4 of die tool 2 may be stationarily fixed while front spindle container 22 is rotated about its longitudinal axis and simultaneously translated toward die tool 2 to push billet 5 against face 4 to extrude extrusion product 30 through orifice 8.
Lavender does not expressly disclose, from claim 19, a front fixed endstock, front and rear movable headstocks, and a rear spindle. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand die tool 2 would be connected to a fixed endstock and that a movable headstock supports front spindle container 22 as it is translated axially.
In the same field of shear-assisted extrusion machines, Thiruvarudchelvan teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extrude feedstock through two dies supported in rotatable spindles arranged along the longitudinal axis of the extrusion machine. See Fig. 5 and column 4, line 31 through column 5, line 31.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange two of Lavender’s spindle containers 22 along the longitudinal axis of Lavender’s extrusion machine in the same way Thiruvarudchelvan teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Thiruvarudchelvan to the disclosure of Lavender would achieve the predictable result of a shear-assisted extrusion system with front and rear rotatable spindles supported by front and rear movable headstocks.
In the same field of extrusion machines, Nilsson teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange a movable headstock (5 in Fig. 1) relative to a fixed front endstock (yoke 2 in Fig. 1). See annotations to Fig. 1 of Nilsson reproduced below. See at least column 2, lines 12-17.
PNG
media_image2.png
459
935
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange two of Lavender’s spindle containers 22 along the longitudinal axis of Nilsson’s extrusion machine according to the teaching of Lavender in view of Thiruvarudchelvan to achieve the predictable result of arranging front and rear headstocks supporting front and rear rotatable spindles relative to a fixed front endstock as Nilsson teaches.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavender in view of Thiruvarudchelvan and Nilsson and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,172,536 to Cairns, hereinafter “Cairns”.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art reference combination of Lavender in view of Thiruvarudchelvan and Nilsson renders the system of claim 5 unpatentable as explained above. Lavender is silent regarding a liner as claimed in claim 6.
In the same field of extrusion presses, Cairns teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a liner in the billet container of an extrusion press. See column 1, line 58-62.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a liner in Lavender’s container 22 in the same way Cairns teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Cairns to Lavender’s disclosed extrusion press would yield the predictable result of adding a liner to Lavender’s extrusion press.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art reference combination of Lavender in view of Thiruvarudchelvan and Nilsson renders the system of claim 19 unpatentable as explained above. Lavender further discloses container 22 is connected to a rotatable spindle that is configured to support feedstock material billet 5 at least partially therein. Lavender does not expressly disclose a spindle motor connected to spindle 22 to rotate it. However, Thiruvarudchelvan does teach connecting a motor to rotate a spindle supporting a die as explained in the rejection of claim 7 above. Nilsson further teaches a rear fixed endstock as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above and a plurality of rails as explained in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Lavender is silent regarding a liner as claimed in claim 20. In the same field of extrusion presses, Cairns teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a liner in the billet container of an extrusion press. See column 1, line 58-62. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a liner in Lavender’s container 22 in the same way Cairns teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Cairns to Lavender’s disclosed extrusion press would yield the predictable result of adding a liner to Lavender’s extrusion press.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavender in view of Thiruvarudchelvan and Nilsson and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,342,055 to Blankenship et al., hereinafter “Blankenship”.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art reference combination of Lavender in view of Thiruvarudchelvan and further in view of Nilsson renders the system of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Lavender is silent regarding a housing and movable doors as claimed in claim 18.
In the same field of extrusion systems, Blankenship teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect a housing around endstocks of an extrusion press and configure doors to at least partially enclose extrudate produced by the extrusion press. See Fig. 1 and col. 3, line 18 through col. 4, line 19.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect a housing and doors to Nilsson’s front and rear fixed endstocks to enclose the extrudate being produced in the same way Blankenship teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Blankenship to Nilsson’s press would achieve the predictable result of adding a housing and doors to Nilsson’s press.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art reference combination of Lavender in view of Thiruvarudchelvan and further in view of Nilsson does not teach a rotary union connected to Lavender’s container 22 configured to deliver fluid to the front spindle as claimed in claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern.
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.
/P DEREK PRESSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights