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 § 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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lepre et al. (hereafter “Lepre”)(US 2006/0201227).
With regards to claim 1, Lepre discloses a tube expansion method of a tubular material, comprising:
extruding a tubular material in which a hollow is formed [paragraph 0037 and Figure 5];
wherein the tubular material extruded through the extruding step has portions with different thicknesses along a circumferential direction, as seen in at least Figure 2C, paragraph 0015;
inserting the tubular material into a cavity of a mold corresponding to a shape of a part to be manufactured, as seen in Figure 6; and
performing hydroforming by injecting a pressure medium into the hollow of the tubular material at a predetermined pressure or higher [at least paragraph 0044].
With regards to claim 2, Lepre discloses wherein: the portions of the tubular material having different thicknesses in the circumferential direction include a first portion with a first thickness and a second portion with a second thickness, wherein the first thickness is greater than the second thickness, as seen in at least Figure 5; and strain of the first portion is greater than strain of the second portion [the portion with the greater thickness would inherently have a greater strain as well.
With regards to claim 5, Lepre discloses wherein the part formed by the hydroforming has portions with different lengths of an outer circumference of a cross-sectional plane [at least paragraph 0037 and Figure 5];
With regards to claim 6, Lepre discloses wherein the tubular material has three or more portions with different thicknesses in the circumferential direction [at least paragraph 0037 and Figure 5].
With regards to claim 7, Lepre discloses wherein portions of the tubular material having different thicknesses in the circumferential direction are formed at a plurality of positions in a longitudinal direction of the tubular material [paragraph 0037 and Figure 5].
With regards to claim 8, Lepre discloses wherein, in portions of the tubular material with different thicknesses in the circumferential direction, a thickness change between adjacent portions with different thicknesses in the circumferential direction is linear, and a thickness change between portions with different thicknesses not adjacent to each other is non-linear, as seen in at least Figure 5.
With regards to claims 9 and 10, Lepre discloses tubular material part manufactured in one piece by the tube expansion method of claim 1, wherein the tubular material part has portions with different outer circumference lengths, as seen in at least Figure 2C. It is noted that claims 9 and 10 are considered as product-by-process claims. It is noted that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepre in view of Colosseo et al. (hereafter “Colosseo”)(US 2015/0343519).
Lepre discloses wherein: the portions of the tubular material having different thicknesses in the circumferential direction include a first portion (246) with a first thickness and a second portion (242) with a second thickness, wherein the first thickness is greater than the second thickness, as seen in at least Figure 5.
Lepre discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein in the performing of the hydroforming, the first portion contacts an inner wall surface of the mold later than the second portion and a gap between the first portion and an inner wall surface of the mold facing the first portion is greater than a gap between the second portion and an inner wall surface of the mold facing the second portion.
With regards to claim 3, Colosseo is relied upon to teach hydroforming a tube wherein first portion (ends of tube) contacts an inner wall surface of the mold later than the second portion (middle of tube), as seen in Figure 5D. With regards to claim 4, Colosseo is relied upon to teach a gap between the first portion (considered to be the middle of the tube) and an inner wall surface of the mold facing the first portion is greater than a gap between the second portion (end of tube) and an inner wall surface of the mold facing the second portion, as seen in Figure 5D. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Lepre’s hydroforming with relationship between the tube and die as taught by Colosseo because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and further show the state of the art: US 2010/0075786.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M EKIERT whose telephone number is (571)272-1901. 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, 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 M EKIERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights