DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1,6,9-13,21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman (7,199,334) in view of Cho et al. (KR 20190063186). Friedman discloses a heating device (36; col. 3, lines 28-32) that is configured to heat a sheet workpiece (12; col. 3, lines 53-60) which is formed into a product (col. 2, lines 66-67 and col. 3, lines 1-4) in a pressing device (14) including a die (52). In a first transportation step (col. 4, lines 39-42), after heating, the sheet workpiece (12) is lifted upward as platen (40) is raised to a lifting location where the sheet is picked up by a transportation device (54,56,58,60,62; Fig. 5A). In a second transportation step (col. 4, lines 6-10 and col. 6, lines 39-54) the sheet workpiece (12) is lifted by the transportation device (54,56,58,60,62) which is driven by a lift mechanism (68; col. 4, lines 54-57) to transport the sheet workpiece (12) from the lifting location to the press machine (14) for forming by the die (52) in a pressing operation (col. 2, lines 60-65). Regarding claim 21, it is not clear what a scope of “out of the heating device is” since the heating device is not defined to be a chamber, oven or any other structure that would have an “in” and an “out” but out of the heating device in Friedman is when the sheet is lifted off the lower platen (40), the upper platen (38) has already been moved upward out of contact with the sheet, the sheet is out of the heating device (38,40) as it is not contacting the platens. Regarding claim 22, the bottom of the sheet (12) is supported by the tines (60) of the transportation device (58) during the second transportation step (Fig. 5A).
Friedman does not disclose that the sheet workpiece is located on a sheet-shaped heat storage member. Cho teaches a method of heating a sheet workpiece (F) in a heating step (page 6, paragraph 1) in a heating device (heating furnace; page 6, paragraphs 2 and 6) in which the sheet workpiece (F) is placed on a sheet-shaped heat storage member (31; page 5, paragraph 2) and heated in the heating device with the sheet workpiece (F) positioned on top of the heat storage member (31) so that it overlaps the heat storage member in a direction normal (vertical) to the sheet workpiece surface (horizontal) as illustrated in Fig. 5. A transportation device comprising a manipulator (13,15) is configured to transport the heat storage member (31) and sheet workpiece (F) to a location (9) for input into the heating device. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to place the sheet workpiece of Friedman on a heat storage member as taught by Cho prior to heating so as to precisely locate the workpiece on a heat storage member that is positioned with the sheet workpiece overlapped on it prior to heating so that the workpiece is positioned for being heated in the heating device to avoid direct heat scratching of the sheet workpiece by the heating device. Regarding claims 6 and 12, Cho teaches that the heat storage member (31) is wider than the sheet (F; Figs. 2 and 3), it is an obvious matter of design choice to space the heat storage member to be at least 10mm wider than the sheet so it effectively supports the sheet without the workpiece sagging over the sides of the heat storage member. Regarding claim 9, the heating device of Friedman is in an enclosure frame (18) with upper platen (38; Figs. 8D,8E) shielding the workpiece (12) from heat loss during lifting of the workpiece (Fig. 8E) to the lifting location in the first transportation step and it is obvious that the platen shields a heat storage member and the workpiece since they are both sheet-shaped objects. Regarding claim 10, the heat storage member (31) and sheet workpiece (F) of Cho are shown to be a similar thickness (Fig. 5) so as to be stackable (Fig. 4) and since the sheet workpiece (F) is resting on the heat storage member, t2/t1 is approximately 1 and it an obvious modification to construct the heat storage member to be thicker than the sheet workpiece to provide adequate support. Regarding claim 11, Applicants' Fig. 3 shows that the distance D is the height that struts (3) extend above the heat storage member and struts are not claimed in claim 1 so it is not clear what the scope of this distance limitation (D) is, but the heat storage member (31) and sheet workpiece (F) of Cho are shown to be approximately a similar thickness and since the sheet workpiece (F) is resting on the heat storage member, D is equal to 1t. Regarding claim 13, Cho discloses that the storage member (31) and tray enclose an edge of the workpiece as the tray (29) has vertical projections (33) which enclose an edge of a sheet-shaped heat storage member (31) which is overlapped by a sheet workpiece (W).
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being patentable over Friedman (7,199,334) in view of Cho et al. (KR 20190063186) and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 111575469). Regarding claim 2, Friedman in view of Cho teaches that the sheet-shaped heat storage member (31) and sheet workpiece (F) are placed on another sheet-shaped member (tray, 29) having projections (33; Cho Fig. 5) that is transported with and heated together with the heat storage member and sheet workpiece but Friedman in view of Cho does not disclose that the heat storage member or tray has a plurality of struts contacting the workpiece. Chen teaches a tray (9) having a plurality of struts (10) for spacing a sheet workpiece (page 5, paragraphs 2 and 3) from a surface of the tray during heating of the sheet workpiece prior to pressing in a mold (page 2, paragraphs 2 and 3). Regarding 3, Chen teaches a sheet-shaped tray (9) and it is an obvious modification to provide struts on a tray or a sheet shaped heat storage member since each of the heat storage member and the tray are sheets of metal material. Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches 200 holes (page 5, paragraph 2) in the heat storage member, shows 4 struts (Fig. 4) and that several struts (10) are used to support a workpiece, it is an obvious modification to place struts in any of the 200 holes to total at least 6 struts. Regarding claim 5, Chen teaches an empty space (9a) including 200 holes in the tray (9). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the sheet-shaped heat storage member or tray of Friedman in view of Cho to include a plurality of through holes and struts installed to space a workpiece from the heat storage member or tray so that a bottom surface of the sheet workpiece is efficiently and quickly evenly heated in the heating device.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman (7,199,334) in view of Cho et al. (KR 20190063186) and further in view of Nakazawa et al. (2019/0091748). Friedman in view of Cho does not disclose a differential thickness blank. Nakazawa teaches a tailor made (differential thickness) workpiece (10) that is heated ([0041], lines 7-19) and press formed in a press (23). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute a differential thickness blank as taught by Nakazawa for the sheet workpiece of Friedman so as to produce a press formed product with varying thickness.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman (7,199,334) in view of Cho et al. (KR 20190063186) and Johnson (2,303,882) and further in view of Nakazawa et al. (2019/0091748). Friedman in view of Cho does not disclose a differential thickness heat storage member. Johnson teaches a heat storage member (2) for supporting workpieces in a heating furnace comprising webs (4,6) that are a different thickness than the openings (10) between the ribs. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the heat storage member of Friedman in view of Cho to include differential thickness webs and openings between the webs as taught by Johnson in order to mitigate the setting up of stresses in the heat storage member structure to avoid cracking of the heat storage member due to internal stresses.
Friedman in view of Cho and Johnson does not disclose a differential thickness workpiece. Nakazawa teaches a tailor made (differential thickness) workpiece (10) that is heated ([0041], lines 7-19) and press formed in a press (23). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute a differential thickness blank as taught by Nakazawa for the sheet workpiece of Friedman so as to produce a press formed product with varying thickness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10-24-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The lifting location in Friedman is off of the lower platen (40), where the sheet of Friedman modified with a heat storage member as taught by Cho is removed from the lower platen (40) after being heated, wherein the sheet is transported in a first transportation step off of the lower platen by the tines (60; col. 6, lines 29-30) and then after that in a second transportation step “once the workpiece 12 is lifted a suitable distance above the upper surface 66 of the lower heated platen” (col. 6, lines 31-38), the sheet is lifted the suitable distance and moved laterally out the heating device to the press.
The Examiner’s position is that there is a suitable distance (lifting of second transportation step) that the sheet is lifted to begin the lateral transferring (col. 6, lines 33-38) to the press assembly at a pressing location (Fig. 5B) after the first transportation step of removing the sheet off of the lower heating platen.
The claim 1 language “pressing location” is a broad recitation and does not set forth that this pressing location needs to be the location where upper and lower dies meet to form the workpiece, therefore Applicant’s argument that the lowering of the workpiece into the press by Friedman teaches against the claimed method is not accepted since the first transportation step and second lifting transportation and lateral movement step of Friedman have already occurred to bring the workpiece to the pressing location of Fig. 5B. This reasoning is supported as it is apparent from Fig. 1 that Applicant’s second transportation step with the manipulator (46, dashed lines, Fig. 1) is not a pure “lifting step” and that there is some lifting and lateral transportation and possibly some downward movement to bring the workpiece into position for working by the dies (21,23) since the dotted lines are parabolic and the movement is similar to the movement of Friedman as evidenced by the arrow in Friedman Fig. 3 (near item 40) which has a vertical (lifting) and lateral component.
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 EDWARD THOMAS TOLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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 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.
/EDWARD T TOLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725