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Claims 1-3, 5 and 14 have been amended, claims 17-20remain withdrawn and claims 1-16 remain under consideration in the application.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1, which is drawn to a system for automated plate shaping, and said system comprises the following structural features: a heating element, one or more quenching components and one or more computer processing components; and the one or more computer processing components configured for executing multiple operations including: determining an amount…, generating a plurality of candidate heating paths…, modeling an estimated deformation .., selecting a first candidate heating path.., and causing the heating element…; but does not recite any clear structural cooperative relationship or link between the heating element and one or more quenching components; and the one or more computer processing components to enable the one or more computer processing components to execute the recited operations on the workpiece. Furthermore, the term “configured” does not necessarily provide the claimed computer processing components with sufficient structure(s) for executing said operations as claimed. Particular, the computer processing component determines the amount of deviation between a present shape or the metal workpiece and a target shape and models an estimated deformation of the metal workpiece, however how the deviation in shape and the deformation is caused in the metal workpiece is not clearly recited in the claim. Furthermore, it is not clear from the claim if either the heating of the workpiece by the heating element or the quenching of the workpiece by the one or more quenching components or both causes the deviation and the deformation of the workpiece thereby rendering the scope of the claim being incomplete and indefinite for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01.
In claim 11, the term “pattern type” renders the scope of the claim indefinite in that it has been held that adding the word “type” to an otherwise definite limitation/expression, extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite.
Also see MPEP 2173.05(b). III.E. To overcome the rejection, it is suggested to amend claim 11 to include the limitation of claim 12 so as not to extend the scope of the
expression “pattern type” in the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal argument is that claim 1, explicitly recites structural elements (a heating element and quenching components) and establishes a structural relationship by reciting that the computer processing components are configured to cause "the heating element to heat a first surface according to the first candidate heating path." This directly links the computer processing components to the heating element. The claim thus recites both the structural elements and their cooperative relationship.
In response, it is noted that the amendment to claim 1 did not completely resolve all the issues raise in the 1112(b) rejection presented in the previous office action mailed on 10/07/2025. Though the claimed automated plate shaping system recites structural features including a heating element, one or more quenching components and one or more computer processing components with the one or more computer processing components configured for executing multiple operations including: determining an amount…, generating a plurality of candidate heating paths…, modeling an estimated deformation .., selecting a first candidate heating path.., and causing the heating element…; but does not recite any clear structural cooperative relationship or link between the heating element and one or more quenching components; and the one or more computer processing components to enable the one or more computer processing components to execute the recited operations on the workpiece. The computer processing component determines the amount of deviation between a present shape or the metal workpiece and a target shape and models an estimated deformation of the metal workpiece, however how the deviation in shape and the deformation is caused in the metal workpiece is not clearly recited in the claim. Furthermore, it is not clear from the claim if either the heating of the workpiece by the heating element or the quenching of the workpiece by the one or more quenching components or both causes the deviation and the deformation of the workpiece thereby rendering the scope of the claim being incomplete and indefinite for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections.
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 MICHAEL ABOAGYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8165. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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 at 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.
/M.A/ Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JESSEE R ROE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights