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 .
Response to Amendment
Upon consideration of the amended abstract, all previous objections thereto are hereby withdrawn.
Upon consideration of the amended claims, all previous rejections thereto under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as well as the interpretation of the Claim 25 limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-7 of the Remarks filed 08/19/2026, with respect to the combination of King, Moore, and Asari no longer teaching all the limitations of the amended Claim 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a new interpretation of King. Due to the lack of structure provided for the tool changing chamber in Claim 14, the vacuum chamber 54 of King, which had previously been interpreted as one of the plurality of lock chambers connected to the workpiece changing chamber, can be interpreted as the claimed tool changing chamber, as it is connected to vacuum chamber 22, i.e. the vacuum forging chamber, via vacuum chamber 38 in a gas-tight manner and is configured to be evacuated (col. 2 lns 3-6 and col. 3 lns 38-45).
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.
Claims 14-18 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King, Jr. et al., hereinafter King (US 3,893,318, provided by Applicant) in view of Moore et al., hereinafter Moore (US 3,698,219, provided by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 14, King discloses (Figures 1-3) a system for isothermally forging metal semi-finished products close to final contours within a vacuum and/or protective gas atmosphere (Abst. ln 1), comprising: a forging press (col. 1 ln 48), including a press ram (plunger 16) that extends into a vacuum forging chamber (vacuum chamber 22); an upper tool (upper die 10); a lower tool (lower die 12); a workpiece changing chamber (vacuum chamber 38), the workpiece changing chamber being connected to the vacuum forging chamber in a gas-tight manner (col. 1 lns 61-63: vacuum chamber 38 is in communication with vacuum chamber 22 as part of the vacuum system, and therefore the connection must be gas-tight); a plurality of lock chambers (vacuum chambers 56/58/60) for preparing and/or heating and/or cooling workpieces (col. 2 lns 15-16), the lock chambers being connected to the workpiece changing chamber in a gas-tight manner (col. 2 lns 16-17); and a tool changing chamber (vacuum chamber 54) that is attached to the vacuum forging chamber in a gas-tight manner and is configured to be evacuated (col. 2 lns 3-6 and col. 3 lns 38-45: vacuum chamber 54 is attached to vacuum chamber 38 in a gas-tight manner, which is in turn attached to vacuum chamber 22 in a gas-tight manner, and is configured to be evacuated).
King does not disclose that the vacuum forging chamber has a round cross-sectional contour, but does state that the type of forging press used is the same as that of Moore. Moore teaches (Figure 2) a system for isothermally forging metal semi-finished products close to final contours within a vacuum and/or protective gas atmosphere (col. 1 lns 11-17), comprising a forging press, including a press ram (movable ram 2) that extends into a vacuum forging chamber (chamber formed by cylindrical member 122; col 4 lns 56-61: a vacuum is formed in the chamber via outlet 162), the vacuum forging chamber having a round cross-sectional contour (cylindrical member 122 is cylindrical in shape and therefore has a round cross-sectional contour). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vacuum forging chamber in the system disclosed by King such that it has a round cross-sectional contour, as taught by Moore, as this is a known structure for a vacuum forging chamber which is specifically mentioned by King for performing the same function.
Regarding Claim 15, with reference to the combination of King and Moore, Moore teaches (Figure 2) the vacuum forging chamber (chamber formed by cylindrical member 122) is a substantially cylindrical chamber with round feedthroughs and ports (Figure 2 clearly shows at least some of the feedthroughs and ports are round, in particular inlet 158, outlet 162, and opening 112).
Regarding Claim 16, King discloses (Figures 1-3) the workpiece changing chamber (vacuum chamber 38) and the lock chambers (vacuum chambers 56/58/60) have round cross-sections (the figures show that vacuum chamber 38 and vacuum chambers 56/58/60 each have cross sections that are at least partially round).
Regarding Claim 17, King discloses (Figures 1-3) the vacuum forging chamber (vacuum chamber 22), the workpiece changing chamber (vacuum chamber 38), and the lock chambers (vacuum chambers 56/58/60) are connected to one another in a gas-tight manner (col. 1 lns 61-63: vacuum chamber 38 is in communication with vacuum chamber 22 as part of the vacuum system, and therefore the connection must be gas-tight; col. 2 lns 15-17). King does not disclose that the recited components are connected via round feedthroughs; however, it is noted that the shapes of the feedthroughs (opening 36 between vacuum chambers 22 and 38, and the openings between vacuum chambers 56/58/60 and vacuum chamber 38) are merely a design choice which does not in itself warrant patentability. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by King and modified by Moore such that the vacuum forging chamber, the workpiece changing chamber, and the lock chambers are connected to one another in a gas-tight manner via round feedthroughs, as this would be the result of routine engineering and design practices.
Regarding Claim 18, King discloses (Figures 1 and 3) the tool changing chamber (vacuum chamber 54) is a tube-shaped component having a round cross-section (the figures clearly show vacuum chamber 54 has a cross-section that is at least partially round and appears to have the shape of a round tube).
Regarding Claim 21, King discloses (Figure 1) a plurality of vacuum pumps (col. 3 lns 44-47: a main pump 136 and an additional pump for the vacuum chamber 54 are provided), but is silent to the locations of said vacuum pumps. Moore teaches (Figure 3) a system for isothermally forging metal semi-finished products close to final contours within a vacuum and/or protective gas atmosphere (col. 1 lns 11-17) comprising a plurality of vacuum pumps (suction means 171 and outlets 260), the vacuum pumps being arranged below a shop floor (extensions 210/212) in a system sub-floor. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the system disclosed by King such that the vacuum pumps are arranged below a shop floor in a system sub-floor, as taught by Moore, as this is a known arrangement for the vacuum pumps of a system for isothermal forging.
Regarding Claim 22, King discloses (Figure 1) a vacuum pump (main pump 136) associated with the vacuum forging chamber (vacuum chamber 22), and a further vacuum pump associated with the workpiece changing chamber (col. 3 lns 44-47: a further vacuum pump is associated with vacuum chamber 54, which is connected to vacuum chamber 38, i.e. the workpiece changing chamber), but is silent to their locations relative to the recited components. Moore teaches (Figure 3) a system for isothermally forging metal semi-finished products close to final contours within a vacuum and/or protective gas atmosphere (col. 1 lns 11-17) comprising a vacuum forging chamber (chamber formed within closure 170) and a workpiece changing chamber (chamber 178), and further comprising a vacuum pump (suction means 171) arranged below the vacuum forging chamber, and a further vacuum pump (outlet 260) arranged below the workpiece changing chamber. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the system disclosed by King such that the vacuum pump is arranged below the vacuum forging chamber, and the further vacuum pump is arranged below the workpiece changing chamber, as taught by Moore, as this is a known arrangement for the vacuum pumps of a system for isothermal forging.
Regarding Claim 23, King discloses (Figure 1) at least one vacuum pump (col. 3 lns 44-47: a main pump 136 and an additional pump for the vacuum chamber 54 are provided), but is silent to the locations of said vacuum pumps. Moore teaches (Figure 3) a system for isothermally forging metal semi-finished products close to final contours within a vacuum and/or protective gas atmosphere (col. 1 lns 11-17) comprising a vacuum forging chamber (chamber formed within closure 170) and a workpiece changing chamber (chamber 178), wherein at least one vacuum pump (suction means 171 and outlets 260) each is arranged below the vacuum forging chamber and below the workpiece changing chamber. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the system disclosed by King such that at least one vacuum pump each is arranged below the vacuum forging chamber, below the workpiece changing chamber, and below the tool changing chamber, as taught by Moore, as this is a known arrangement for the vacuum pumps of a system for isothermal forging.
Regarding Claim 24, King discloses (Figures 1 and 3) the workpiece changing chamber (vacuum chamber 38), the lock chambers (vacuum chambers 56/58/60), and the tool changing chamber (vacuum chamber 54) are at least partially tube-shaped components that are joined together in a modular design (vacuum chamber 38 appears to have the shape of a square tube, and vacuum chambers 54/56/58/60 appear to each have the shape of a round tube) that are joined together in a modular design.
Regarding Claim 25, King discloses (Figures 1 and 3) at least some of the lock chambers (vacuum chambers 56/58/60) have a heater (box 73 with heating coils 74) for heating workpieces or a tool (col. 2 lns 15-24).
Regarding Claim 26, King discloses (Figure 1) a horizontally movable manipulator (jaws 114/116 on carriage 86 guided along guide rail 84) for handling workpieces (workpiece W) arranged in the workpiece changing chamber (vacuum chamber 38).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 19, prior art fails to teach, alone or in combination, a system for isothermally forging metal semi-finished products close to final contours within a vacuum and/or protective gas atmosphere, comprising a forging press including a vacuum forging chamber, and a tool changing chamber attached to the vacuum forging chamber, wherein further lock chambers are attached to the tool changing chamber via vacuum gate valves, together with the other limitations of the claim. In US 3,893,318 to King et al., which is considered to be the most relevant prior art, the tool changing chamber (vacuum chamber 54) does not have additional lock chambers attached thereto in any manner, and one skilled in the art would not be motivated to add any. Claim 19 is therefore allowed.
Claim 20 is allowed by virtue of its dependence upon Claim 19.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA A GUTHRIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5042. The examiner can normally be reached M/Tu/Th, 10-6 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.
/TERESA A GUTHRIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights