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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-11 are examined in the office action of which claims 1, 3-4 and 6-9 were amended.
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, 3-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-11 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.
Regarding claims 1, 3-4 and 6-11,
Claim 1 recites
“dwelling said press while uniformly cooling said blank while held in said form tool to a second temperature at a rate at which material of said blank changes from said [[one]] first metallurgical condition to another metallurgical condition; [[,]] and[[],]
upon material of said blank attaining said other metallurgical condition, continuing to operate the press further while holding said blank within said form tool to advance [[a]] said piercing punch after said other metallurgical condition is attained so that material of said blank in said other condition is pierced while held by said form tool” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “ “said other metallurgical condition”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "an AC3 point" in line 2. It is unclear what material the “AC3 point” is of.
Claims 3-4 and 6-11 are dependents of claim 1, do not resolve the aforementioned issues and thereby also indefinite.
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 1, 3-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over A review on hot stamping of Karbasian (NPL’1).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-4, A review on hot stamping of Karbasian (NPL’1) teaches “The hot stamping process currently exists in two different main variants: the direct and the indirect hot stamping method. In the direct hot stamping process, a blank is heated up in a furnace, transferred to the press and subsequently formed and quenched in the closed tool (Fig. 2a). The indirect hot stamping process is characterized by the use of a nearly complete cold pre-formed part which is subjected only to a quenching and calibration operation in the press after austenitization (Fig. 2b) (Merklein et al., 2008). Full martensite transformation in the material causes an increase of the tensile strength of up to 1500 MPa.”“The hot stamping process begins with the heating of the blank up to the austenitization temperature.” (3. Heating) “In order to avoid cooling of the part before forming, the blank must be transferred as quickly as possible from the furnace to the press. Furthermore, forming must be completed before the beginning of the martensite transformation. Therefore, a fast tool closing and forming process are the precondition for a successful process control. After forming, the part is quenched in the closed tool, which is cooled by water ducts to transfer the heat out of the tool system. In order to avoid the quenching of the blank between the blank holder and the die during the forming process, most of the hot stamping tool systems work with a distance blank holder (Fig. 6).” (4. Forming) “After the forming of the heated blank in the austenitic temperature range, the part is quenched in the closed tool until the entire martensite transformation of the part structure is completely” thereby reading on the inserting, operating and dwelling steps of the method of claim s1, 3 and 4.
With respect to the piercing step, the prior art teaches “Similar to conventional sheet metal forming, cutting or piercing are the next stage in the hot stamping process chain after forming and, if necessary, shot blasting. The different methods used for cutting hot stamped parts are reviewed.” Although the prior art does not explicitly teach the piercing step to be part of the press, it is well known in the art to integrate piercing or cutting as part of the press. Therefore, it 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 to integrate the piercing or cutting within the pressing tool to complete the processing in an efficient manner.
Regarding claims 6-9, it is noted that the prior art NPL’1 does not explicitly teach of the compressible cylinder assembly and its operations as recited in the instant claims. However, one skilled in art recognizes compressible cylinder assemblies and its operations are well known expedients in the art of press forming. Therefore, it 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 to take the method of NPL’1 and employ compressible cylinder assemblies as recited in the instant claims thereby arriving at the limitations of the instant claims as this is a known expedient in the art of press forming and employing it can facilitate the operations of the press.
Regarding claims 10-11, NPL’1 teaches “Cooling can be accelerated by the application of tool steels with improved heat conductivity (Casas et al., 2008) and/or more efficient cooling systems (Hoffmann et al., 2007). By the application of the tool steels developed by Casas et al. (2008) with a thermal conductivity of up to 66 W/mK, the holding time could be reduced from 10 to 2 s.” inferring that cooling times up to 10s for quenching is typical and therefore meets the recited limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the piercing step, the prior art teaches “Similar to conventional sheet metal forming, cutting or piercing are the next stage in the hot stamping process chain after forming and, if necessary, shot blasting. The different methods used for cutting hot stamped parts are reviewed.” Although the prior art does not explicitly teach the piercing step to be part of the press, it is well known in the art to integrate piercing or cutting as part of the press. Therefore, it 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 to integrate the piercing or cutting within the pressing tool to complete the processing in an efficient manner.
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 JOPHY S. KOSHY whose telephone number is (571)272-0030. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM- 5:00 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, KEITH HENDRICKS can be reached on (571)272-1401. 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.
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733