METHOD AND DEVICE FOR PRODUCING TUBES, WIRES, PROFILES AND SIMILAR ELONGATE MATERIAL BY MEANS OF A DRAWING DEVICE
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/24/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner note
Applicant has used the transitional phrases “in which” in claim 1, “characterized in that” in claims 2-5 and 7-8, and “with” in claim 6. The examiner interprets these transitional phrases to be open claim language that is inclusive of any limitations not specified in the relevant claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the occurrence or absence of emissions” should read “the occurrence or absence of vibration emissions”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the drawing process” should read “a drawing process”. 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “method vibration emissions” is unclear if exclusion of vibrations not produced in the drawing process in required or something else. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “vibration emissions”. Further, the limitation “the occurrence or absence of emissions which rise and fall over time and/or pulse-like emissions is recognised” is unclear if the absence of pulse-like emissions is being recognized. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “the occurrence or absence of emissions which rise and fall over time is recognised and/or pulse-like emissions are recognised”. The dependent claims are likewise rejected and interpreted.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “divided into frequency ranges of low and high emission and the detection is performed in the low emission range” is unclear. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “divided into frequency ranges of low frequency emission and high frequency emission and the detection is performed in the low frequency emission range”.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “the occurrence or absence over time of rising and falling emissions and/or pulse-like emissions is detected” is unclear if the absence of pulse-like emissions is being evaluated. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “the occurrence or absence over time of rising and falling emissions is detected and/or pulse-like emissions are detected”. The dependent claims are likewise rejected and interpreted.
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 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beer (EP 0780171; “Beer”), in view of Seuthe (US 20110209546; “Seuthe”).
Regarding claim 1, Beer discloses, a method for producing tubes, wires, profiles and similar long material by means of a drawing device (ABSTRACT, “controlling tube drawings using a die and mandrel”), in which method vibration emissions are detected (see Beer’s translation, p. 4, , Beer detects vibration with one of an inductive sensor system (¶ 2), a strain gauge (¶ 5) and/or a piezoelectric sensor system (¶ 5)) and analysed during the drawing process on a material strand and/or on a drawing device in order to detect defects (see claim 1, examiner notes Beer senses vibration during pulling and adjust the pulling speed and lubrication of pipes based on a vibration setpoint) such as drawing grooves and chatter marks (see Beer’s translation, p. 1, ¶ 4, examiner notes chatter causes defects such as chatter marks that make the drawn pipes no longer usable), characterised in that the vibration emissions are continuously (¶ 0021, vibration spectrum data is processed in real time) analysed (p. 2, ¶ 1, Beer discloses negative outcomes of a delayed response, therefore the examiner construes Beer’s analysis to be continuous) in such a way that the occurrence or absence of emissions which rise and fall over time (see Beer’s translation, p. 3, ¶ 6, Beer detects vibrations, the examiner construes vibrations to be a emissions which rise and fall over time since vibrations are inherently oscillatory motion of a medium) and that the drawing speed is changed in response thereto (see previous comment).
Beer fails to disclose the continuously spectral analyzing vibration emissions.
Seuthe teaches, in figures 1-8, characterised in that the vibration emissions are continuously subjected to a spectral analysis (¶ 0030, Seuthe performs frequency-time analysis) in such a way that the occurrence or absence of emissions which rise and fall over time (see fig. 4) and/or pulse-like emissions (see fig. 6) is recognised (¶ 0020, Seuthe evaluates frequency-time data to identify fingerprints characteristic of specific faults or fault types in real time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Seuthe’s scheme of using frequency-time analysis of work peace processing vibration data into Beer’s scheme identifying the onset of destructive vibration of a pipe-stopper-die machine to initiate countermeasures since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable process for selectively determining faults.
Regarding claim 2, Beer and Seuthe disclose the drawing speed is reduced if the occurrence of emissions is detected (see Beer’s translation, p. 3, ¶ 6, Beer reduces drawing speed if vibrations exceed a setpoint).
Regarding claim 3, Beer and Seuthe disclose the drawing speed is increased if the absence of emissions is detected (see Beer’s translation, p. 3, ¶ 6, Beer increases drawing speed if vibrations are below a target value).
Regarding claim 4, Beer and Seuthe disclose the drawing speed is adaptively controlled (see Beer’s translation, p. 3, ¶ 6-7, Beer optimizes output on drawn tubes since drawing speed is increased if vibrations are below a target value and drawing speed is reduced if vibrations exceed a setpoint, all while drawing no pipes with chatter marks).
Regarding claim 5, Beer and Seuthe disclose, in Seuthe’s figures 1-8, the vibration emissions are divided into frequency ranges of low and high emission (¶ 0025-0026, Seuthe’s wide band capability is divided into a low frequency range and high frequency range).
Beer and Seuthe fail to disclose the detection is performed in the low emission range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to perform detection in the low frequency emission range, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, to detect emissions originating from chatter. Doing so would increase early detection of chatter by eliminating frequencies of data not related to chatter.
Regarding claim 6, Beer disclose a drawing device for drawing tubes, wires, profiles and similar material strands (ABSTRACT, “controlling tube drawings using a die and mandrel”), with a sensor for detecting vibrations (see Beer’s translation,p. 4, , Beer detects vibration with one of an inductive sensor system (¶ 2), a strain gauge (¶ 5) and/or a piezoelectric sensor system (¶ 5)) which occur on the material strand and/or on the drawing device (see Beer’s translation, p. 4, ¶ 3, Beer’s sensor is positioned in front and behind the die during the drawing process, p. 4, ¶ 5, Beer’s sensor is positioned at the end of a stopper rod and holder during the drawing process) during the drawing process (see claim 1, examiner notes Beer senses vibration during pulling and adjust the pulling speed and lubrication of pipes based on a vibration setpoint), and an evaluation device (see Beer’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 2, “fuzzy controller”) coupled to the sensor (see previous comment) for evaluating the detected vibrations for the purpose of recognising defects such as drawing grooves and chatter marks (see Beer’s translation, p. 1, ¶ 4, examiner notes chatter causes defects such as chatter marks that make the drawn pipes no longer usable), characterised in that the evaluation device (see previous comment) is designed to continuously (¶ 0021, vibration spectrum data is processed in real time) perform analysis (p. 2, ¶ 1, Beer discloses negative outcomes of a delayed response, therefore the examiner construes Beer’s analysis to be continuous) in such a way that the occurrence or absence over time of rising and falling emissions (see Beer’s translation, p. 3, ¶ 6, Beer detects vibrations, the examiner construes vibrations to be a emissions which rise and fall over time since vibrations are inherently oscillatory motion of a medium), and is designed for open-loop or closed-loop control of the drawing speed in response to the detection (see Beer’s translation, p. 3, ¶ 6-7, examiner notes drawing speed is increased if vibrations are below a target value and drawing speed is reduced if vibrations exceed a setpoint, all while drawing no pipes with chatter marks).
Beer fails to disclose spectral analysis of vibration emissions.
Seuthe teaches, in figures 1-8, characterised in that the evaluation device (6) is designed to continuously subject vibration emissions (¶ 0017, Seuthe performs vibration analysis thus analyzes vibration data) to a spectral analysis (¶ 0030, Seuthe performs frequency-time analysis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Seuthe’s scheme of using frequency-time analysis of work peace processing vibration data into Beer’s device identifying the onset of destructive vibration of a pipe-stopper-die machine to initiate countermeasures since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable system for selectively determining faults.
Regarding claim 7, Beer and Seuthe disclose the sensor (see Beer’s translation,p. 4, , Beer detects vibration with one of an inductive sensor system (¶ 2), a strain gauge (¶ 5) and/or a piezoelectric sensor system (¶ 5)) is coupled to an outer tool (see Beer’s translation, p. 4, ¶ 3, Beer’s sensor is positioned in front and behind the die, the examiner construes the die to be an outer tool).
Regarding claim 8, Beer and Seuthe disclose the sensor is coupled to an inner tool (p. 4, ¶ 5, Beer’s sensor is positioned at the end of a stopper rod and holder, the examiner construes the stopper rod to be an inner tool).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hanada (US 10071408) discloses the detection of a stick-slip phenomenon in a drawing machine based on frequency analysis of load measurements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY P GRAVES whose telephone number is (469)295-9072. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/TIMOTHY P GRAVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights