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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/02/2026 with respect Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “Applicant respectfully disagrees with such a position, particularly upon entry of the amendments above. Knight fails to teach any interchangeable components related to a standing seam as claimed, not to mention any disclosure or fair suggestion of the presence of an interchangeable anvil as now required. The disclosure within Knight relates solely, as it concerns any replacement parts, to changing a crimping device to a decrimping device, not providing any means to adjust the capability of any device from a first crimping device to one that accords a different crimping result through an interchangeable anvil. It is not understood how this decrimping capability is considered anticipatory of the pending claims, particularly when the replacement aspects of Knight are limited to devices that exhibit totally opposite results (crimping versus decrimping). The presently claims are directed to a solely crimping device. As such, there is no anticipation by Knight over claim 1 and Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of such a rejection”.
In response to this argument, the claim is drawing only to the crimping device;
The device of King is capable and structured to perfume the function for crimping a standing seam; since it has been held a claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115;
Furthermore, the prior art of King is clearly disclosing “FIGS. 8 and 9 illustrate various types of tool tips which may be used with the crimping and uncrimping tools of FIGS. 6 and 7. (Note however, that the illustrated tool tips are not exhaustive of all tips which may be used. FIGS. 8A and 9A illustrate a simple bull-nosed crimping tip 66 for crimping one tab at a time. The crimping tip 68 of FIGS. 8B and 9B has a bifurcated tip 68A enabling two tabs to be crimped simultaneously. FIGS. 8C and 9C illustrate yet another crimping tip 69 having a pointed nose 69A (King: lines col.10 18-31))”;
so, the device of King is clearly disclosing various crimping tips;
Therefore, the device of King is capable to be used with any tool tips including separately, at least one anvil, at least one blade, and at least one jaw hook.
Accordingly; this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “Irvin fails to teach or fairly suggest anything regarding replacement of a jaw component with another, only that embodiments of such devices may be provided with different jaw structures. Even were Irvin actually teaching that a user or ordinarily skilled artisan may substitute one jaw for another, this fails to teach the same device as now claimed, let alone the same structures as now claimed in terms of actual interchangeable component”.
In response to this argument, the prior art of Irvin (US3624876A) discloses:
The opposite ends of the scissorslike sub-assembly 72 are connected to the scissors-like subassembly 70 and to the jaw arms 48, 50 of the jaw means 32 by the end pivots 76 (col.4 line 1-5); and
the prior art of Irvin discloses FIG. 9 illustrates the end pivot 76 between the subassemblies 68, 70. It is to be understood that the construction illustrated in FIG. 9 is typical of the remaining pivots 74, 76. As shown in FIG. 9, fastening means such as cooperating shoulder screw 90 and nut 92 pivotally connect the arms 80, 78, 80;
So, since the element (76) having the fasting means (90) which allows to the jaw (32) to be capable to interchangeable by the cutter of figures 4-5; and thus, the device of Irvin is capable to be used with any tool tips including separately, at least one anvil, at least one blade, and at least one jaw hook.
Accordingly; this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “Irvin is related strictly to a crimping device utilizing specific manipulation capabilities that require specific movement to be operated. The jaws themselves require nothing beyond the structures taught within Irvin to function; the jaws squeeze a steel flange together with opposing force, thus not requiring an anvil or like structure to create a base component around which the steel seam would bend. As it is, in now way is Irvin dicsusing, disclosing, teaching, or fairly suggesting the presence of an anvil component, let alone the interchangeability thereof, as now claimed”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., manipulation capabilities that require specific movement to be operated; squeeze; and force) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly; this argument is not persuasive.
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 1-2 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.
Regarding claim 1, in lines 11-13 the phrase “the removal and substitution of at least one anvil, the removal and substitution of at least one blade, and the removal and substitution of at least one jaw hook” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the removal and substitution of at least one anvil, the removal and substitution of at least one blade, and the removal and substitution of at least one jaw hook” is the same as or different from “at least one anvil, at least one blade, and at least one jaw hook” that recited in lines 10-11 of the same claim 1.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination, the Examiner interpreted “the removal and substitution of at least one anvil, the removal and substitution of at least one blade, and the removal and substitution of at least one jaw hook” is the same as “at least one anvil, at least one blade, and at least one jaw hook” that recited in lines 10-11 of the same claim 1
Claim 2 is rejected because it depends from claim 1.
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 –
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by King (US5174004A).
Regarding claim 1, King discloses a manually operated crimping device (abstract, col.8 last 4 lines-col.10, and figs.6-9); said crimping device comprising:
at least one crimping station for placement over said standing seam, said at least one crimping station comprising manual crimping components (col.10 lines 18-31 and figs.8-9) to simultaneously provide bend to said flange component of said standing seam at over which said crimping station is placed (fig.9B),
wherein said crimping components include, separately, at least one anvil, at least one blade, and at least one jaw hook, wherein said crimping components are interchangeable through the removal and substitution of at least one anvil, the removal and substitution at least one blade, and the removal and substitution at least one anvil a jaw hook (col.10 lines 18-31 and figs.8-9, the device of King is capable to be used with any tool tips including separately, at least one anvil, at least one blade, and at least one jaw hook),
wherein a multiple of different variations of said interchangeable crimping components is provided to accord multiple variations of resultant crimping configurations by the said manually operated crimping device (col.8 last 4 lines col.10, and figs.6-9).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King (US5174004A).
Regarding claim 2, King does not disclose wherein more than one said at least one crimping station is present;
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to King to add station as many as desired in order to provide an improved clamping jig which enables the workpiece to be clamped within the jig quickly and simply (King: col.1 lines 49-52). MPEP 2144.04, VI.A.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irvin (US3624876A) in view of Morton (US8667656B1).
Regarding claim 1, Irvin discloses a manually operated crimping device (abstract and figs.1-2); said crimping device comprising:
at least one crimping station for placement over said standing seam, said at least one crimping station comprising manual crimping components (col.3 lines 48-55; col.4 lines 6-16; figs.6 and 9: the jaw (32) and the cutter of figures 4-5),
wherein said crimping components include, separately, at least one anvil, at least one blade, and at least one jaw hook, wherein said crimping components are interchangeable through the removal and substitution of at least one anvil, the removal and substitution at least one blade, and the removal and substitution at least one anvil a jaw hook, wherein a multiple of different variations of said interchangeable crimping components is provided to accord multiple variations of resultant crimping configurations by the said manually operated crimping device (col.3 lines 48-55; col.4 lines 6-16; figs.6 and 9: the element (76) having the fasting means (90) which allows to the jaw (32) to be capable to interchangeable by the cutter of figures 4-5; thus the device of Irvin is capable to be used with any tool tips including separately, at least one anvil, at least one blade, and at least one jaw hook).
Irvin does not disclose to simultaneously provide bend to said flange component of said standing seam at over which said crimping station is placed.
Morton teaches a crimping device, wherein said crimping device comprising:
at least one crimping station for placement over said standing seam, said at least one crimping station comprising manual crimping components to simultaneously provide bend to said flange component of said standing seam at over which said crimping station is placed (figs.4 and 8 and col.8 lines 10-20), and
Both of the prior arts of Irvin and Morton are related to a crimping device for crimping a portion of a standing seam of adjacent metal panels;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the configuration of the jaws of the device of Irvin by the configuration of the jaws that simultaneously bend substantially all of said flange component of said standing seam at the location at which said crimping device is placed as taught by Irvin , since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Regarding claim 2, Irvin in view of Morton does not disclose wherein more than one said at least one crimping station is present;
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Irvin in view of Morton to add station as many as desired in order to provide a clinching tool having improved jaw operating means (Irvin: col.1 lines 36-37). MPEP 2144.04, VI.A.
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 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 MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights