DETAILED ACTION1
REJECTIONS UNDER 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious2 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-3, 7-9, & 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 8,661,671 to Hill in view of either (or both of) U.S. 2020/0362737 to Alig or U.S. 2009/0087354 to Lawrukovich.
Claim 1 recites a system for installing a replacement core into a CECD housing. Hill relates to a process and system for inserting cores into a DECD housing. See Hill col. 3, ll. 2-35. Hill teaches that if the core is determined to be cracked or damaged it should be removed and a new core inserted into the housing. See Hill co. 6, ll. 62-65. The core for a re-used housing may be deemed to be a replacement core. Since the same equipment would be used for this second stuffing operation, the system (35) shown in figures 4-7 of Hill is thus a system for installing a replacement core into a CECD housing. Figures 4-7 show the system has a core press station having a piston (48) and a working platform (42). Figures 4-7 further show a control station (51) for controlling movement of the piston…and a stuffing funnel (37, 38) configured to couple to the DECD housing (2) proximate an upper end. Claim 1 also recites a recore shaft. The term recore is being interpreted as a name for the shaft, not an indication of any specific structure (beyond that the shaft is capable of being used in a recoring operation). Figures 4-7 of Hill show a shaft (8) connected to the piston. Finally, figures 5-7 of Hill show that movement of the piston is capable of the intended use of press[ing] the replacement core (4) through the stuffing funnel (37, 38) into the DECD housing.
Claim 1 also recites a spacer connected to the working platform. Hill does not teach placing a spacer on the working platform, but the prior art teaches that it is known to use spacers in catalytic converters. See Alig Figs. 1-2, element 9 and Lawrukovich Fig. 1, element 34. Hill relates to a stuffing system designed to be used in many different applications. Such application would include using a spacer, as known in the art because it is obvious to apply a known technique to a known product or method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). Claim 1 further recites that the movement of the piston is configured to press …until the replacement core abuts the spacer. This constitutes an intended use the system in action, but does not constitute a limitation on the piston itself. The piston of Hill is capable of pushing the core down to any number of depths, particularly as the system regularly measures the depth to which the ram has reached during the process. See Hill col. 5, l. 15-20. Thus, the system is capable of instructing the ram to stop at a specific depth that would correspond with contact with the spacer. As such, the system it is capable of the intended use. (If claim 1 recited a controller configured to control the piston until a sensor indicated that the core had contacted the spacer, this might constitute a distinction from the prior art.)
Claim 2 recites that the spacer is configured to fit within the…housing. These spacers would be sized to fit within the…housing because that is where they are used Hill does not teach placing the spacer on the working platform. But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that when stuffing a housing that would have a spacer on the opposite end of the core (to control the position of the core) that the spacer should logically be placed below the core in the housing in its proper position.
Claim 3 recites that the recore shaft has a recore engagement plate disposed opposite the end that connects to the shaft. Figures 4-7 show the shaft (8) has a lower end portion (49) sized to match the core shape. See Hill col. 6, ll. 9-21. Claim 3 also recites the recore shaft has a recore shaft portion (8) [with a] female aperture configured to connect to the piston (48). Figures 4-6 show that the shaft (8) and piston (48) are connected. They do not show a female aperture, such as a screw shaft for connecting the two. Yet, Hill teaches that the lower end portion (49) piston is sized to match the core. See Hill col. 6, ll. 9-21. Different vehicles may require different sized housings and cores. It therefore would have been obvious as a matter of common sense to modify Hill to use a replaceable piston system to allow different sized pistons. There are a finite number of ways to create such a replaceable system. One is to screw the piston onto the shaft. This would necessitate a screw-hole on the shaft (8) near where it connects to the piston (48). It would have been obvious to try and modify Hill to use such a screw and shaft connection system. This in turn would result in a female aperture configured to connect to the piston. Claim 7 recites that the spacer is based on an overhang distance between an unobstructed side of the DECD housing and a face of an existing core. Figure 1 of Lawrukovich shows a spacer (34) that is sized to define a gap between two cores. When stuffing a second core above the first core, a spacer of this size would be used. Regarding claim 8, it is standard practice to align the housing flow direction with the core flow direction to ensure the completed structure functions properly. Such a step would have been obvious as a matter of common sense. Claim 9 defines a specific orientation of the housing and core. This is a method step and is defines the process the apparatus uses, rather than any specific structure. There are only two ways to align a core and housing for stuffing. With the housing flow side up or down and the core in corresponding alignment. Neither alignment affects the recited structures in any meaningful way as recited. Thus, the feature does not further limit the claim.
Claim 11 recites the dimensions of the stuffing funnel are based on the outside diameter of the…core and the inside diameter of the…housing. The purpose of the funnel is to compress the core to fit into the housing with a wrapping mat. Thus, the dimensions of the funnel will be based on the uncompressed diameter of the core/matting, which by extension is based on the diameter alone. The second end of the full will be aligned with the diameter of the inside of the housing. One of ordinary skill would therefore infer this feature. Regarding claim 12, the engagement plate (49) of Hill is shown as a circular disk in figure 7.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 8,661,671 to Hill in view of either (or both of) U.S. 2020/0362737 to Alig or U.S. 2009/0087354 to Lawrukovich, and further in view of U.S. 2004/0013581 to Burnette and U.S. 3,680,183 to Sundberg.
Claim 4 recites that the system [includes] an adjustable wrapping station. The term adjustable can imply many different types of structures, but claim 5 then recites one such system having a set of rollers for supporting the replacement core. This claims 4-5 will be rejected as a single unit. Hill teaches that the core must be wrapped with a mat. See Hill col. 3, ll. 38-39. Hill is silent as to how this is accomplished. One of ordinary skill would look to the relevant art to find examples of suitable mechanisms for performing this wrapping. Burnette also relates to fabricating catalytic converts formed of wrapped cores stuffed into housings. See Burnette [0001] and Fig. 9. Burnette is therefore highly analogous art. Burnette teaches wrapping stations (221) are used to perform the wrapping process. See Burnette Fig. 9. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Hill to include a wrapping station. Burnette does not illustrate or describe this station, so again one of ordinary skill would look to the prior art for suitable examples. Sundberg teaches a device for rolling fibrous matting up. See Sundberg col. 15, ll. 14-56 and Figs. 15-22. Sundberg shows that the rolling process involves a plurality of rollers (134, 135, & 144) that wrap the matting (123) around a metal core (122). Id. The lower two rollers (134, 135) support the metal core (122). Id. It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known product or method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). In this case, it would have been obvious to modify Hill/Burnette to use a system such as shown in Sundberg as a wrapping station to wrap the mat around the core. Such a modification would have been predictable because Sundberg is wrapping a similar type of mat around the same shape. The wrapping station of Sundberg is also configured to support a matting because the matting is what is being wrapped around the core.
Claim 6 recites that the wrapping station [has] a tape roller configured to dispense a wrapping material. None of the cited references explicitly mention using tape to secure the matting. Yet applicant’s specification states that its system uses “standard wrapping tape.” See Specification [00104]. This constitutes an admission that it was known in the catalytic converter arts to adhere stuffing mats with wrapping tape. (Otherwise how could a “standard” tape exist?) It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known product or method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). In this case, it would have been obvious to use wrapping tape in the wrapping station of Sunberg. It would further have been obvious as a matter of common sense to use a standard tape dispenser, which is the tape field is a roller.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 8,661,671 to Hill in view of either (or both of) U.S. 2020/0362737 to Alig or U.S. 2009/0087354 to Lawrukovich, and further in view of U.S. 2017/0310389 to McMonhagle.
Claim 10 recites that the control station includes a two-handed sensor for controlling activation. Hill does not teach such a sensor. But it would have been obvious to modify Hill to include such a system in view of McMonhagle. McMonhagle teaches that two handed sensors (sensor that require contact of two operator hands prior to commencing an operation) are a known safety technology for potentially dangerous machinery that might catch a person’s hand. See McMonhagle [0002]-[0003]. It would have been obvious to modify Hill to include this feature for operator safety, since the ram press of Hill is a device that would hurt an operator’s hand and hurt it.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant's arguments filed December 1, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Each of applicant’s remarks is set forth, followed by examiner’s response.
Applicant’s amendment overcome the anticipation rejection, as it incorporates elements of claim 3, which were only rejected under 103. Applicant does not argue that the elements of claim 3 were not taught, but rather argues that the movement of the piston was not configured to press until the core abutted the spacer. Applicant argues that in the prior art showing spacers, the spacer would not be in such a position that contact would be desired. This argument is irrelevant, because the piston being configure to perform such contact only requires that the piston be capable of controlling its position and ceasing movement at a desired location. Hill teaches such control.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’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. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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. 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.
/MOSHE WILENSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference. All citations to “specification” are to the applicant’s published specification unless otherwise indicated. The use of the phrase “et al.” following a reference is used solely to refer to subsequent modifying references, and not to other listed inventors of the cited reference.
2 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.”