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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 4-5 currently recite: “or pipe sector, wherein the bending machine comprises” and should read “or pipe sector;
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites: “wherein the ratio D/t is at least 100”
Claim 3 recites: “wherein the at least a first groove has a depth that is at least equal to the height of the at least a first metal stiffening element”
Claim 4 recites: “wherein the at least a first groove has a depth that is substantially equal to the height of the at least a first metal stiffening element”
Claims 2-4 are not clear because the claims attempt to define the bending machine in terms of a workpiece that is not a part of the machine.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 6-7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohh Hah Young (hereafter “Young”) (KR 101034079).
With regards to claim 1, Young discloses a bending machine for making a reinforced pipe or pipe sector, the reinforced pipe or pipe sector comprising a metal pipe or pipe sector, having a thickness t and a base of diameter D, and at least a first metal stiffening element on the inside or outside surface along a circumference of the metal pipe or pipe sector;
the bending machine comprises an inner roller (124) and two outer rollers (114, 116), wherein the outer surface of the inner roller or of the outer rollers comprises at least a first groove [as seen in at least Figure 5], to accommodate the at least a first metal stiffening element (2).
With regards to claim 2-4, the claims do not define any technical features of the bending machine, see 112 rejections above.
With regards to claim 6, Young discloses further comprising at least two spacers (104, 114).
With regards to claim 7, Young discloses wherein each spacer comprises a vertical acting spacer roller (104, 114).
With regards to claim 16, Young discloses comprising at least two spacers (104, 114)) placed each side of the stiffening elements, between the first metal pipe or pipe sector and the inner roller; the spacers comprising a vertical acting spacer roller (104, 114) for transmitting the pressure of the inner roller (124) to the first metal pipe or pipe sector.
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 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of Sky (JP H08117870 A).
Young discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for further comprising a means for welding the at least a first metal stiffening element to the metal pipe sector. Sky is relied upon to teach a roll forming method including a welding, as described in paragraph 0027. 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 Young’s machine with a welding device 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)].
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of Stahl (DE 3342188 A1).
Young discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein each spacer comprises at least a lateral acting spacer roller. Stahl discloses both vertical (Figure 1, any subsection of 6) and lateral (figure 2, outermost subsection 6 which acts laterally against flange 24) acting spacer rollers). 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 Young’s machine with a lateral acting spacer roller 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)].
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of
Young discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for further comprising a support roller. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an additional roller, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of Hugas (GB 2411183 A).
Young discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein said first groove is a helicoidal groove. Hugas is relied upon to teach a helicoidal groove, as seen in Figure 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Young’s groove to be helicoidal because simple substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results requiring only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 12-15 are 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.
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 Patent 6,378,193.
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