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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II (i.e., claims 22-29 ) without traverse in the reply filed on 07/07/2026 is acknowledged. Claim(s) 16-21 is/are withdrawn as being drawn to nonelected Group I. Accordingly, claim(s) 22-29 is/are examined herein.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 22-29 is/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 22 recites the limitations “into a processing station (50) via a linear movement (46)” and “into the molding tool (52, 52.4) via a linear movement (46)” which make the scope of the claim unclear. The claim can have multiple plausible interpretations including the interpretations that the recited linear movement is the same or different linear movements. Based on claim 1 and Applicant’s disclosure, the linear movements have the same direction but are different with respect to time and distance. Thus, the limitations have been examined below as if they read --into a processing station (50) via a first linear movement (46)-- and --into the molding tool (52, 52.4) via a second linear movement (46)--.
Claim(s) 23-29 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 21 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “heating the molding tool (52, 52.4) during opening” which is indefinite. It is unclear to what opening is Applicant referring to.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “from the molding tool (52, 52.4) via a linear movement (46)” which is indefinite. The limitation can have multiple plausible interpretations including the interpretations that the recited linear movement in claim 28 is the same or different from the linear movements of claim 22. Based on claim 28 and Applicant’s disclosure, the linear movement of claim 28 is different from the other linear movements with respect to direction, time, and distance. Thus, the limitation has been examined below as if it read --from the molding tool (52, 52.4) via a third linear movement (46)--.
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.
Claim(s) 22-25 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanioka (EP 2857057 B1 – of record) in view of Huang (CN 113478796A with English machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 22, Tanioka discloses a method for shaping a free end of a tube section (P0077), comprising:
introducing the free end of the tube section into a processing station via a first linear movement (introducing a free end of tube section of W into 110 via a first liner movement: P0062-0065, 0071, 0080-0081, Figs. 10-13), and guiding the free end of the tube section over a tool core (guiding the free end of tube section of W into mold core 121: P0068-0069, Figs. 10-13 and other corresponding description);
… inductive heating a molding tool (150) of the processing station (110) by … controlling a current through the molding tool to heat a recessed region (152) of the molding tool (P064, 0066, 0082, Figs. 10-11 and other corresponding description); and
inserting the free end of the tube section further into the molding tool via a second/subsequent linear movement, and thereby shaping an outer contour of the free end of the tube section (P0082, 0086, Figs. 14-15 and other corresponding description).
Tanioka differs from the claimed invention in that Tanioka teaches inductive heating instead of resistive heating and does not teach continuously controlling the current.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that resistive heating is an obvious variant of inductive heating and continuous and non-continuous control of the current are the only limited and obvious options available.
In the same field of endeavor, methods for shaping a free end of a tube, Huang discloses the technique/step of resistively heating a molding tool (20) by continuously controlling a current through a heating element (32) provided on the molding tool to heat a recessed region of the molding tool (cavity 40 and/or groove 321 of 20 shown in Figs. 3-4 and 9) for the benefit(s) of improving/ensuring a proper temperature distribution/control and molding accuracy (Abstract, pg. 4, pg. 6, Figs. 1-3 and 9 and corresponding description).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Tanioka in view of Huang by resistively heating the molding tool of the processing station by continuously controlling a current through the molding tool to heat a recessed region of the molding tool as these are obvious variants and yield the predictable benefit(s) of improving/ensuring a proper temperature distribution/control and molding accuracy as suggested by Huang.
Regarding claim 23, Tanioka further discloses checking the tube section by at least one sensor unit (125) before introducing into the processing station (P0068, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 24, Tanioka further discloses wherein the heating of the molding tool is terminated after the shaping has ended (P0082-0083), and wherein the free end of the tube section remains in an inserted position (Fig. 15) for a predetermined length of time after the shaping has ended and the heating of the molding tool has been terminated (P0082-0084).
Regarding claim 25, Tanioka further discloses wherein after the heating of the molding tool has been terminated, a cooling means (131) is activated (P0083, Fig. 16 and corresponding description).
Regarding claim 28, Tanioka further discloses removing the free end of the tube section after shaping from the molding tool via a third linear movement (P0084-0085, Fig. 17 and corresponding description).
Claim(s) 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanioka in view of Huang as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Renning (DE 2830088 with English machine translation – of record).
Regarding claim 26, Tanioka or the combination fails to disclose closing the molding tool before the free end of the tube section is inserted further.
In the same field of endeavor, methods for shaping a free end of a tube, Renning discloses the technique/step of closing the molding tool before the free end of the tube section is inserted further into the molding tool, opening the molding tool after the outer contour of the free end of the tube section has been shaped for the benefit(s) of facilitating/improving shaping and removal of the tube section (Figs. 5-8 and corresponding description).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Tanioka in view of Renning by closing the molding tool before the free end of the tube section is inserted further into the molding tool, opening the molding tool after the outer contour of the free end of the tube section has been shaped for the benefit(s) of facilitating/improving shaping and removal of the tube section as suggested by Renning.
Regarding claim 27, Tanioka or the combination fails to disclose heating the molding tool during opening.
Renning further discloses the technique/step of heating the molding tool during opening of the molding tool the benefit(s) of improving efficiency (Fig. 5 and corresponding description)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Tanioka in view of Renning by heating the molding tool during opening of the molding tool the benefit(s) of improving efficiency as suggested by Renning.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanioka in view of Huang as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Davis (US 3284849).
Regarding claim 26, Tanioka or the combination fails to disclose supplying a continuous tube (22), and cutting off the tube section (14) at a desired length from the continuous tube (22) after shaping the outer contour (70) of the free end (12).
In an analogous art, methods for shaping tubes, Davis discloses that these steps are well-known and desirable in the art for the benefit(s) of improving efficiency/production (Fig. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Tanioka in view of Davis by supplying a continuous tube, and cutting off the tube section at a desired length from the continuous tube after shaping the outer contour of the free end for the benefit(s) of improving efficiency/production.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
JERZI H. MORENO HERNANDEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights