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 .
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 774,818 A to Barr in view of JP 2004-098125 A to Koji.
Regarding claim 1, Barr teaches a die comprising a first die and a second die (Fig. 1), wherein at least one of the first die 1 or the second die 2 comprises:
a bottom portion having a solid surface (Fig. 1 shows the bottom portion, i.e., the structure running transversely across the die and opposite to portion 3, that is solid);
a top portion 3 that has a solid surface and is provided apart from the bottom portion (Fig. 1 shows the top portion 3 is solid, and it is noted that which portion is top or bottom depends on the orientation of the die and portion 3 would be the top portion if the die were to be rotated 180 degrees);
an insert 10 forming a die face disposed on the solid surface of the top portion 3 (Fig. 1; P. 1, Lns. 65-72; the die includes “hardened steel pieces 10… removably inserted into recesses formed in the wall 3 of the dies,” i.e., an insert, and it is noted that the top or bottom portion of the dies depend on their orientation thus the insert 10 may be on the top portion when the dies are flipped 180 degrees);
wherein the insert 10 has one entire surface thereof in contact with the solid surface (Fig. 1), and the insert has the die face on the surface opposite to the one surface thereof (Fig. 1); and
a first stiffening member 4 having one end directly connected to the bottom portion and another end connected to the top portion 3 (Fig. 1; P. 1, Lns. 25-39; the stiffening member 4 is connected to the bottom portion and the top portion), the first stiffening member 4 extending in an inclined manner from the bottom portion side toward the top portion side (Fig. 1 shows multiple of the stiffening members 4 are inclined from the bottom portion to the top portion).
While Barr teaches the first stiffening member extending in an inclined manner, Barr fails to explicitly teach the first stiffening member extending in an inclined manner from a connection portion with the bottom portion toward a side at which a center of the top portion is located (Fig. 1). However, because there is no evidence that the claimed inclined direction of the first stiffening member provides a new and unexpected result, and because the principal operation of Barr would remain unchanged, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first stiffening member of Barr to incline towards a center of the top portion, since it has been held that where the principal operation of the prior art device would remain unchanged the mere reversal or rearrangement of elements taught in the prior art is an obvious modification as it would amount to nothing more than a matter of engineering choice arrived at through routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.04 VI).
Barr also fails to teach each of the solid surfaces of the bottom portion and the top portion being in a single plane and wherein the insert has one entire surface thereof in contact with the single planar surface. Barr teaches that the solid surfaces 3 are “constructed to impart the desired shape or contour to the article.” Barr, P. 1, Lns. 27-30.
Koji teaches a press forming apparatus including die 4, 7 having a bottom portion having a single plane solid surface and a top portion that has a single plane solid surface (Para. [0020]; Figs. 1-3; as best seen in Fig. 3, the dies include top and bottom portions having single plane solid surfaces, i.e., the surfaces pressing the workpiece 8 and then attached to the slider 2 or bolster 5 are all single plane).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the solid surfaces of the dies of Barr to be in a single plane as taught by Koji so that the press may form a workpiece into a product having flat surfaces when such a shape is desired and also have a surface interacting with the slider or bolster that supports the forming surface in parallel, thus allowing for a uniform application of force. Further, modifying Barr to include a single planar surface results in the wherein the insert has one entire surface thereof in contact with the single planar surface because Barr teaches the insert being in contact with the solid surface (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Barr teaches the die 1, 2 according to claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the first stiffening member 4 is provided only at the first die 1 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Barr teaches the die 1, 2 according to claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the first stiffening member 4 is provided only at the second die 1 (Fig. 1; it is noted that either die may be the first or second die, and therefore for claim 3 the second die is considered the top die 1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Barr teaches the die according to claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein at least one die comprises the first stiffening member 4 and the other die comprises a second stiffening member 4 (Fig. 1; P. 1, Lns. 25-39; both dies including stiffening members 4).
Regarding claim 5, modified Barr teaches the die according to claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein a second stiffening member 4 is disposed at the same die as the first stiffening member 4, and the first stiffening member 4 and the second stiffening member 4 are disposed across a center of the top portion (Examiner Annotated Fig. 1 is provided below and shows the first and second stiffening members 4 disposed across a center of the top portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
371
533
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, modified Barr teaches the die according to claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein:
at least one of the first die or second die is configured to be mounted to a pressing machine (P. 1, Lns. 49-54; the dies are mounted on components that allow them to be moved towards each other to press an article, i.e., a pressing machine);
at least one of the first die 1 or the second die 2 further includes a longitudinal rib 4 extending in a direction perpendicular to the single plane solid surface of the top portion (Examine Annotated Fig. 1; P. 1, Lns. 25-39; in modified Barr the solid surface is a single plane that is perpendicular to the pressing direction to form a flat final product, and thus the rib would be perpendicular to the single plane solid surface), and
wherein the longitudinal rib 4, the bottom portion 3, and the first stiffening member 4 form a truss structure (Examiner Annotated Fig. 1; P. 1, Lns. 25-39; Examiner Annotated Fig. 1 shows that the right side of the die 1 has a truss formed by the inclined stiffening members 4, the vertical rib 4 and the bottom portion along with the top portion).
Regarding claim 7, modified Barr teaches the die 1, 2 according to claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the connection portion with the bottom portion of the first stiffening member 4 or a connection portion with the top portion of the first stiffening member is wider than a central region of the stiffening member 4 (Fig. 1 shows that the connection portions at the top and bottom of the stiffening members 4 is wider than the central portion).
Regarding claim 8, modified Barr teaches the die according to claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein, in at least one of the first die 1 or the second die 2, the first stiffening member 4 is formed integrally with the bottom portion and the top portion (Fig. 1; P. 1, Lns. 25-39; the stiffening member 4 is shown as being integral with the bottom and top portions, and it is noted that this claim is interpreted as product-by-process).
Regarding claim 9, modified Barr teaches the die according to claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein, in at least one of the first die 1 or the second die 2, the first stiffening member 4 is formed separately from the bottom portion and the top portion (Fig. 1; P. 1, Lns. 25-39; It is noted that this claim is a product-by-process claim, and, as discussed in MPEP 2113, “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the present claim, the stiffening member 4, bottom portion and top portion of Barr are structurally the same product as one in which the stiffening member 4 is formed separately from the bottom and top portions).
Regarding claim 10, modified Barr teaches the dies according to claim 1 on a pressing machine (Fig. 1; P. 1, Lns. 49-54; the dies are moved towards each other to bend the workpiece).
However, Barr fails to explicitly teach the press machine having a support device, a slide that is lowered during the press molding, and the dies being disposed between the support device and the slide because Barr is silent regarding the components of the pressing machine beyond the dies or how the dies are moved.
Koji teaches a pressing machine (Figs. 1-3) comprising a support device 5 (Figs. 1-2; Para. [0020]);
a slide 2 that is lowered during press molding (Figs. 1-2; Para. [0020]); and
a die 4, 7 disposed between the support device 5 and the slide 2 (Figs. 1-3; Para. [0015]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the pressing machine of Barr to include a slide, a support device and the die positioned between them as taught by Koji so that the dies may be firmly supported and held in position during the forming process and the movement of the dies may be precisely controlled via the slider.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks dated January 28, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive. In particular, Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach the new claim features the insert having one entire surface thereof in contact with the single planar solid surface and the insert has the die face on the surface opposite to the one surface. Remarks, PP. 6-8. Applicant argues that Koji fails to teach any insert and Barr teaches an insert that does not have one entire surface thereof in contact with a single planar solid surface. Id. These arguments have been carefully considered and they are not persuasive. As discussed in MPEP 2145(IV), “[o]ne cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” As discussed above, the claims are rejected based on a combination of Barr and Koji in which Barr teaches providing an insert attached to a solid surface that is “constructed to impart the desired shape or contour” (Barr, P. 1, Lns. 27-30) and Koji teaches the desired shape is flat. Thus, a combination of these references teaches the solid surfaces being single planar solid surface and the insert having one entire surface thereof in contact as the inserts are connected to the solid surfaces.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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, Chris Templeton can be reached on (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.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725