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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Martin Gonzalez (US 2016/0263640) does not provide a “description of what the mechanism is, let alone its specific structure, form or function (is).” It is further argues that “Gonzalez does not disclose the mechanism for moving the entire press body. This means that Gonzalez would not have disclosed or suggested the claimed features of material position control unit. Because there is no disclosure for any means for controlling the position of the strip material, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been sufficiently guided to arrive at the claimed material position control unit from paragraph [0025] of Gonzalez.”
Examiner respectfully maintains that the claims do not require “disclos(ing) the mechanism (control unit) for moving the entire press body.” The claim requires “a material position control unit in the form of a cylinder is provided on a surface on which the plurality of mold on the press bolster are disposed.” The claim does not require a particular function of the unit. Examiner respectfully maintains that Gonzalez discloses “a mechanism (not shown) configured to provide upwards and downwards press progression of the mobile upper body 3 with respect to the fixed lower body 2,” as described paragraph 25. Examiner notes that Gonzalez does not discloses the specific structure, but a 103 rejection was made to address this. That is, Martin discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein a material position control unit in the form of a cylinder. It is considered to be well-known that a material position control unit includes cylinders, clutches or brakes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cylinder since it would have been obvious to try this technique when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for control, with a reasonable expectation of success. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
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 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin Gonzalez et al. (hereafter “Martin”)(US 2016/0263640), previously presented.
With regards to claim 13, Martin discloses an apparatus for manufacturing a hot press formed member for a multistage process, the apparatus comprising:
a heating unit for heating the strip material [furnace system, paragraph 0009];
a processing unit (system 1) including a processing apparatus in which a plurality of molds including a forming mold (press tool 20, paragraph 0039) and a trimming mold (trimming tool 30, paragraph 0043) are mounted on one press, as seen in at least Figure 1; and
a transfer unit for transferring the strip material heated in the heating unit to the processing unit [transferring device, paragraph 0009];
wherein the one press includes a pressing slide (mobile upper body 3) and a press bolster (fixed lower body 2), and a material position control unit is provided on a surface on which the plurality of molds on the press bolster are disposed [ paragraph 0025].
Martin discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for a supply unit for continuously supplying a strip material. Martin discloses that a plurality of blanks undergo manufacturing steps simultaneously [paragraph 0008]. It is considered to be well-known to provide a supply unit or manually feed material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a supply unit since it would have been obvious to try this technique when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for forming, with a reasonable expectation of success. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Martin discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the plurality of molds including (a) one or more molds selected from the group consisting of a notching mold and a blanking mold. Martin discloses another mold that can perform further trimming and/or piercing operations [tool 40, paragraph 0049]. It is considered to be well-known that forming stations can perform stamping, bending, blanking, flanging, stretching, hemming, piercing, trimming, pressing, drawing, roll forming, hydroforming, or any other metal forming operations It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a blanking or notching instead of trimming or piercing since it would have been obvious to try this technique when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for forming, with a reasonable expectation of success. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Martin discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein a material position control unit in the form of a cylinder. It is considered to be well-known that a material position control unit includes cylinders, clutches or brakes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cylinder since it would have been obvious to try this technique when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for control, with a reasonable expectation of success. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
With regards to claim 14, Martin discloses wherein the processing apparatus further includes a temperature control unit for of any of the molds/tools [paragraph 0062]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the temperature control unit between the press and the one or more molds since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 12 are allowed.
Claim 15 is 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.
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 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