DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-7) and Species A1 (Claim 4) in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 5, 6 and 8-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koyama (JPS59197335).
Regarding Claim 1, Koyama teaches a method for producing an inner (Fig. 9, 67) and an outer ring-shaped formed part (Fig. 9, 66) from a blank (Fig. 3, 40), comprising the steps:
- cup extrusion of the blank (Fig. 3, 40) to form a cup (Fig. 5, 45) having a drawn-out cup base (Fig. 5, a bottom of a conical hole 42) and an adjoining stepless cup wall (Fig. 5, a wall of a conical hole 42) (page 2, lines 15-17),
- forming of the cup wall (Fig. 5, a wall of conical hole 42) in such a way that the formed cup wall comprises an inner ring-shaped section (Fig. 8, 67) and an adjoining outer ring-shaped section (Fig. 8, 66) which is partly offset in an axial direction (Fig. 8, vertical direction) (page 2, line 17-page 5, line 15), and
- separation of the outer ring-shaped section (Fig. 8, 66) from the inner ring-shaped section (Fig. 8, 67) and separation of the inner ring-shaped section (Fig. 8, 67) from the drawn-out cup base (Fig. 9, 43) (Although the cup base shape has changed during the cup wall forming process, the cup base portion still exists in Figs. 8 and 9.), the detached outer ring-shaped section (Fig. 8, 66) constituting the outer ring-shaped formed part (Fig. 9, 66); and the detached inner ring-shaped section (Fig. 8, 67) constituting the inner ring-shaped formed part (Fig. 9, 67) (page 5, lines 15-17).
Regarding Claim 2, Koyama teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein during the cup extrusion of the blank, the cup base (Fig. 5, a bottom of a conical hole 42) is shaped between an end face (see Fig. 5 below) of a first forming punch portion and a support face (see Fig. 5 below) of an ejector.
PNG
media_image1.png
216
265
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Koyama teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the cup extrusion of the blank is effected in a first forming station (Fig. 5 shows a station having a die 44 and a punch for the cup extrusion of the blank.) with a stepless forming die (Fig. 5, 44) and the forming of the cup wall is effected in a second forming station (Fig. 8 shows another station having a die 48 and a punch 49) with a forming die (Fig. 8, 48) having a stepped region (Fig. 8, 52).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyama (JPS59197335).
Regarding Claim 7, Koyama teaches according to the method according to claim 1, the cup extrusion of the blank and the forming of the cup wall are effected by hot-forming (page 6, line 7: hot forging).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat up the blank of Koyama to a certain temperature above the recrystallization temperature of the blank material including 500°C and above depending on the material of the blank in order to easily shape the blank into a desired form.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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: None of the references of record teach “during the cup extrusion of the blank, at least a part of a peripheral inner surface of the inner ring-shaped formed part is shaped by a peripheral outer surface of the first forming punch portion” as the peripheral inner surface of the inner ring-shaped formed part is shaped by a second forming punch portion during the cup wall forming step.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jeremiah (U.S. Patent No. 1,387,638), Wang (CN104959510), Wu (CN105057556), Obata (WO2016098886), Nasu (JP2005288505). All of these references teach Claim 1 similar to the prior art, Koyama cited in the above rejection, however, none of them teach the allowable subject matter of Claim 3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN S YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7141. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, SUNIL SINGH can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/JUN S YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 1/14/2026