DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s Response, dated 13 March 2026, which papers have been made of record.
Claims 1-17 are currently presented for examination, of which claim 13 is withdrawn from consideration.
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 § 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 1-12 and 14-17 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 1 recites “the reference axis” at lines 4-5 and “a reference axis” at line 6. It is unclear how many reference axes are required by the claimed method.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the reference axis" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-12 and 14-17 each depend from claim 1, and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 1.
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 1-9, 11, and 14-17
Claims 1-9, 11, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent 5,868,050 to Feldmeier (hereinafter “Feldmeier”).
Regarding claim 1, Feldmeier discloses an induction heating method for a ring-shaped member (1), the method comprising: supplying a ring-shaped member (1, becomes plurality of ring sections 4) to a predetermined section (interior of coil 5 and region proximate thereto; see Fig. 1) serving as a heating target section associated with an induction coil (5); a length of the predetermined section (horizontal length of predetermined section; see Annotated Figure) along the reference axis (along direction of arrow, unnumbered, in Fig. 1) corresponding to an effective length of the induction coil (5; corresponding does not require unity or identity of dimensions); and moving the ring-shaped member (1) along a reference axis (along direction of arrow, unnumbered, in Fig. 1) so as to pass through the predetermined section (interior of coil 5), wherein the moving includes heating the ring-shaped member (1) in the predetermined section (see Annotated Figure) using the induction coil (5; see Col. 7, lines 1-3), and the moving further includes controlling contact between the ring-shaped member (1) and a different member (surfaces of two rollers 2) by a contact control portion (outer surface of two rollers 2 and axial forward movement cause movement of ring shaped member through apparatus; see Col. 7, lines 1-5), wherein the contact control portion (outer surface of two rollers 2) has a member (portion of rollers at cutting portions 8 and 9), at least a part of the member being disposed within the predetermined section (see Annotated Figure below, rollers 2 partially within predetermined section) along the reference axis (horizontal direction with respect to Annotated Figure) and being disposed between the induction coil (5) and the ring shaped member (1) in a radial direction of the induction coil (5; see Fig. 2, a portion of each roller at cutting portions 8 and 9 abut ring shaped member and are radially between interior space of induction coil 5 and ring shaped member).
PNG
media_image1.png
648
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Feldmeier discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Feldmeier discloses that the contact control portion has two rollers (select two rollers 2; see Fig. 1) which individually extend along the reference axis (direction of arrow in Fig. 1, centerline in Fig. 2) and rotate in the same direction (see Col. 7, lines 12-19), and in the predetermined section (see Annotated Figure above) the ring-shaped member (1) moves along the reference axis (in direction of arrow of Fig. 1) while rotating around the reference axis of the two rollers (see Col. 7, lines 21-22).
Regarding claim 3, Feldmeier discloses the limitations of claim 2, and further Feldmeier discloses that a propulsive force of the ring-shaped member (1) is generated on a basis of contact between the two rollers (2) and the ring-shaped member (see Col. 7, lines 21-22).
Regarding claim 4, Feldmeier discloses the limitations of claim 2, and further Feldmeier discloses that the contact control portion further has a retaining member (clamping structure 11, 12 in Fig. 2) and the ring-shaped member (1) is disposed between the two rollers (2) and the restraining member (11, 12; see Fig. 2, ring shaped member 1 extends longitudinally between clamping portion and rollers).
Regarding claim 5, Feldmeier discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Feldmeier discloses that the contact control portion includes a spiral member (8) which extends along the reference axis and has a spiral shape (see Fig. 2), and in the predetermined section (interior of 5), the ring shaped member (1) moves along the reference axis at a radially inward side of the spiral member (see Fig. 3; ring shaped member moves radially and longitudinal along direction of arrows at right side of Figure).
Regarding claim 6, Feldmeier discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Feldmeier discloses that the contact control portion (rollers 2) includes a tube member (see Fig. 6; rollers may be hollow or tubular) which extends along the reference axis and has a cylindrical shape (see Fig. 6), and in the predetermined section (see Annotated Figure above), the ring-shaped member (1) moves along the reference axis at a radially inward side of the tube member (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Feldmeier discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Feldmeier discloses that the contact control portion includes a plurality of guide rods (22 or 25; see Fig. 6; understood to be present and unnumbered in Fig. 1) which individually extend along the reference axis (along direction of arrow in Fig. 1; centerline in Fig. 6) and are disposed apart from each other in a circumferential direction around the reference axis (longitudinal axis of member 1), and in the predetermined section (see Annotated Figure above), the ring-shaped member (1) moves along the reference axis in a region (entire area shown in Fig. 1 understood to read on the recited “region”) surrounded by the plurality of guide rods (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Feldmeier discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Feldmeier discloses that the contact control portion includes a guide rail (third roller 2, see Fig. 1) which extends along the reference axis (along longitudinal direction of member 1), and in the predetermined section (see Annotated Figure above), the ring-shaped member (1) moves along the reference axis by rolling on the guide rail (third roller 2).
Regarding claim 9, Feldmeier discloses the limitations of claim 8, and further Feldmeier discloses that the contact control portion (outer surface of two rollers 2) further has a restraining member (surfaces 3), and the ring-shaped member (1) is disposed between the guide rail (third roller 2), and the restraining member (surfaces 3 of two rollers; see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Feldmeier discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Feldmeier discloses that the reference axis (along longitudinal direction of element 1) in the predetermined section (at interior of 5) is set obliquely with respect to a horizontal axis or is set in a vertical direction (direction of axis can be designated as vertical), in at least the predetermined section, a plurality of ring-shaped members (member 1 defines plurality of members 4 which are present within the predetermined section) are continuously disposed (see Fig. 2; segments 4 follow one after each other), and when one of the plurality of ring-shaped members at a lower end (leftmost end with respect to Fig. 2) is drawn out, the remaining ring-shaped members move downward (member 1 and all separate ring shaped members 4 are urged leftward; see Fig. 2 and along vertical axis in Annotated Figure below by movement of rollers 2). The examiner notes that the vertical direction is not, for example, required to be in the direction of the force of gravity. As shown in the annotated Figure, the three primary axes of a conventional cartesian coordinate system can be assigned such that the “vertical” axis extends along the longitudinal direction of the ring shaped member (plurality of members 4 connected in member 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
550
720
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Feldmeier discloses a manufacturing method for a ring-shaped member (segments 4 of member 1) the method comprising: performing heat treatment (see Col. 3, lines 17-24; deformation resistance results from heating) with respect to the ring-shaped member (segments 4 of member 1) by heating the ring-shaped member (segments 4 of member 1; each segment has been heated by induction heater 5) using the induction heating method for a ring-shaped member according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 15, Feldmeier discloses a manufacturing method for a bearing (segments 4 of member 1; see Col. 2, lines 44-48) constituted of a ring-shaped member, the method comprising: performing heat treatment (see Col. 3, lines 17-24; deformation resistance results from heating) with respect to the ring-shaped member (segments 4 of member 1) by heating the ring-shaped member (segments 4 of member 1) using the induction heating method for a ring-shaped member according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 16, Feldmeier discloses a manufacturing method for a vehicle including a ring-shaped member (segments 4 of member 1; see Col. 2, lines 44-48) the method comprising: performing heat treatment (see Col. 3, lines 17-24; deformation resistance results from heating) with respect to the ring-shaped member (segments 4 of member 1) by heating the ring-shaped member (segments 4 of member 1) using the induction heating method for a ring-shaped member according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 17, Feldmeier discloses a manufacturing method for a mechanical device including a ring-shaped member (segments 4 of member 1) the method comprising: performing heat treatment (see Col. 3, lines 17-24; deformation resistance results from heating) with respect to the ring-shaped member (segments 4 of member 1) by heating the ring-shaped member (segments 4 of member 1) using the induction heating method for a ring-shaped member according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 12
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldmeier as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2018/0092164 to Gaensbauer et al. (hereinafter “Gaensbauer”).
Regarding claim 12, Feldmeier discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that in the predetermined section (region adjacent induction heater 5), the ring-shaped member magnetically levitates. Feldmeier teaches that the ring-shaped member may be formed of a metal (see Col. 1, line 64 – Col. 2, line 4).
Feldmeier is silent regarding the operation of the induction device and magnetism. However, it is known in the art of heating bodies via induction heating to magnetically levitate the workpieces.
For example, Gaensbauer teaches an induction heating device (100; see paragraph [0075]) which may be used to heat a magnetic article (110) via induction heating in a heating area (102; see paragraph [0078]). The heating may be performed via an induction loop (118) provided with magnets (114, 116) for heating (paragraph [0078]) and levitating the workpiece (110; paragraph [0079]). The magnets may levitate the metal article in addition to heating the workpiece, which may provide additional temperature control with respect to the workpiece (see paragraph [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by Feldmeier to include providing a known induction heating device configuration such as the induction heater taught by Gaensbauer, which causes workpieces to levitate during use. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting method would advantageously result in the workpiece being heated experiencing advantageous temperature control during the heating process.
Thus, the combination of Feldmeier and Gaensbauer teaches the limitations of claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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.
Response to Arguments
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's arguments filed 13 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that amendments to claim 13 have been presented which include the limitations of amended claim 1. Applicant requests rejoinder of claim 13.
The examiner notes for completeness that the response of 26 November 2025 elected Group I, claims 1-12 and 14-17, without traverse.
Claim 1 remains rejected over art. Claim 13 is not ripe for rejoinder at this time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant's arguments filed 13 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments filed 13 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 14-17 were previously rejected as anticipated by Feldmeier.
Applicant notes that claim 1 has been amended to require “a member of the contact control portion to be positioned radially between the induction coil and the ring-shaped member within the heating section.” Applicant asserts that Feldmeier fails to disclose or suggest a structural arrangement in which a control member is disposed in the radial gap between the induction coil and the workpiece within the induction heating section.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites “wherein a contact control portion has a member, at least a part of the member being disposed within the predetermined section along the reference axis and being disposed between the induction coil and the ring-shaped member in a radial direction of the induction coil.” The predetermined section is not defined as being limited to “the radial gap” between the induction coil and the workpiece. A member of the contact control portion of Feldmeier can be defined such that the member extends radially between the interior of the induction heating section and the radial exterior of the ring shaped member within the predetermined section. The claim as currently written is understood to require the member of the contact control portion extends in the radial direction between a radial extent of the induction coil and a radial extend of the ring-shaped member, not necessarily within a gap between surfaces thereof.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite “a length of the predetermined section along the reference axis corresponding to an effective length of the induction coil.” Applicant asserts that “defining the heating section based on the effective length of the induction coil allows for a compact and precise heating arrangement, which is not taught by the large-scale processing disclosed in Feldmeier.” Applicant states “such long workpieces inherently maintain positional stability while passing through the induction coil.” To the best of the examiner’s understanding, Applicant is arguing that the predetermined section has a maximum length which is identical to the length of the workpiece being heated.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is not clear from where Applicant finds inherent stability in Feldmeier, but even if it were, there is nothing in the claims suggesting any relatively “instability” of the workpieces in the claimed method. Further, at least Figure 3 of Feldmeier teaches an advancing device with a securing tip 15 which is also shown (see Col. 8, lines 23-29) and which functions to provide centering of the workpiece relative to the induction ring 5. To the best of the examiner’s understanding, stability of the workpiece is not inherent because of the length of the workpiece, and may instead by a function of a centering or securing component of the heating assembly. Insofar as the arguments being presented amount to the premise that the length of the predetermined section is identical to the length of the workpiece, the claim does not recite such a length relationship. The term “corresponding” does not necessarily mean identity with, and multiples of a length would still potentially “correspond” with said length.
Applicant next asserts that “Feldmeier primarily addresses processing of elongated tubular workpieces. Such long workpieces inherently maintain positional stability while passing through the induction coil. In contrast, the present invention addresses ring-shaped members having a relatively short axial length, which are more prone to positional instability and potential contact with the induction coil.”
The examiner notes that these arguments appear to be directed to unclaimed features or alleged impacts of the method. The examiner also notes that at least Figures 3 and 5 of the instant Application appear to show induction coils 8 having significantly different lengths (coil 8 in Fig. 3 appears to be the width of 5 to 6 rings Mr; coil 8 in Fig. 5 appears to be the width of coils 8b appear to extend at least 15 rings Mr). It is unclear how the extended lengths of the embodiment of Figure 5 has a logical nexus with Applicant’s arguments regarding the allegedly short axial length.
Applicant finally asserts that “the present invention addresses ring-shaped members having a relatively short axial length, which are more prone to positional instability and potential contact with the induction coil.” Applicant appears to be arguing that Feldmeier does not teach a member capable of preventing contact with the induction coil.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. At least Figure 3 of Feldmeier teaches a centering tip (15) which may be provided for advancing and centering the workpiece relative to the center of the induction ring (5). As best understood, such centering tip (15) and the surrounding rollers (2) cooperate to prevent the workpiece from contacting the sides of the induction ring (5).
The rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 13 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 12 was previously rejected over the combination of Feldmeier and Gaensbauer.
Applicant assets that neither Feldmeier nor Gaensbauer teaches the member of the contact control portion disposed between the induction coil and the ring-shaped member within the heating section, regarding claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites “wherein a contact control portion has a member, at least a part of the member being disposed within the predetermined section along the reference axis and being disposed between the induction coil and the ring-shaped member in a radial direction of the induction coil.” The predetermined section is not defined as being limited to “the radial gap” between the induction coil and the workpiece. A member of the contact control portion of Feldmeier can be defined such that the member extends radially between the interior of the induction heating section and the radial exterior of the ring shaped member within the predetermined section. The claim as currently written is understood to require the member of the contact control portion extends in the radial direction between a radial extent of the induction coil and a radial extend of the ring-shaped member, not necessarily within a gap between surfaces thereof. The arguments appear to misstate the requirements of the claim to conclude that the combination cannot teach the limitations of claim 12.
Applicant notes that “Gaensbauer primarily relates to heating elongated metallic materials transported through a heating apparatus. Such elongated materials maintain positional stability during transport and therefore do not present the same risk of contact with the induction coil as short ring-shaped members.” Applicant appears to argue that the combination would not motivate a person having ordinary skill in the art to position a workpiece using magnetic force because supporting the workpiece is not necessary due to alleged “positional stability.”
The examiner agrees with the statement of the teachings of Gaensbauer, but disagrees with Applicant’s conclusion. However, it is nonetheless clear that Feldmeier contemplates that centering its workpiece during use. Further, Gaensbauer teaches that its magnetic positioning of the workpiece may provide improved temperature control (paragraph [0079]), such that the benefits of such magnetic positioning are not only alleged stability, but also improved control of the heating process.
Applicant points to alleged advantages over the combination at page 11 of the Response.
Insofar as the alleged advantages are not claimed, the physical protection and improved heating efficiency are not understood to limit the claimed method in the manner argued.
The rejection of claim 12 is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent Application Publication 2015/0041456 to Haimer teaches an induction coil heating unit for heating a workpiece.
United States Patent 4,238,658 to Kalnin et al. teaches a method for moving a workpiece through an induction heating device.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/D.C.F/Examiner, Art Unit 3726
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 04/03/2026