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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 102178739 B1; IDS dated 04/18/2023 Foreign Patent Cite No. 1; see machine translation; hereinafter Lee).
With regards to claim 1, Lee discloses a shape checking device (FIG. 1) for a bending material (abstract), comprising:
a material fixing unit (including 10 and 22; FIG. 1-2) including a support member (10) on which a first surface of a material (1) including a first surface (see horizontal surface of 1 in FIG. 1) and a second surface (see surfaces of 1 bent by 20) bent from the first surface is seated ([0019]), and a pressing member (20) configured to press the first surface of the material seated on the support member (FIG. 1-2; [0022-0024]);
a distance measuring unit (80) connected to the support member (10; FIG. 1), and measuring a distance to the second surface ([0038]; FIG. 1),
wherein the distance measuring unit includes a first distance measuring device (left side 80; FIG. 1) for measuring a distance to the second surface, and a second distance measuring device (right side 80; FIG. 1) for measuring a distance to a second surface, identical to the second surface on which a distance thereof is measured by the first distance measuring device, in a position spaced apart from the first distance measuring device in a first direction, different from a bending forming direction of a material (FIG. 1; [0038-0040]).
With regards to claim 2, Lee discloses the shape checking device for a bending material of claim 1, further comprising:
a shape inferring unit (41) connected to the distance measuring unit (80), and inferring a shape of a material from a result measured by the distance measuring unit ([0041-0042]),
wherein the shape inferring unit calculates distortion generated in a material based on a result measured by the first distance measuring device and a result measured by the second distance measuring device ([0055-0056]).
With regards to claim 7, Lee discloses the shape checking device for a bending material of claim 1, wherein the material (1) comprises a forming portion (corner portion of 1 after being bent, see FIG. 1) formed to be bent and a connection portion (portion between the two bent part of 1; FIG. 1) surrounding the forming portion and connecting neighboring forming portions, and
a material traveling direction in which the material is supplied and discharged to the shape checking device for the bending material is the first direction (it is noted that the material traveling direction is a limitation that is not considered to be a part of the shape checking device. The material traveling direction is limitation usable with the shape checking device and does not further distinguish the structure of the shape checking device. Thus, the shape checking device of Lee is capable of being use with a material supplied in the direction as suggested).
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 102178739 B1; IDS dated 04/18/2023 Foreign Patent Cite No. 1; see machine translation; hereinafter Lee).
With regards to claim 3, Lee teaches the shape checking device for a bending material of claim 1, wherein the second surface is provided on both sides of the first surface (see surfaces of 1 in FIG. 2). However, Lee is silent regarding wherein the distance measuring unit further comprises a third distance measuring device for measuring a distance to a second surface, different from the second surface measured by the first and second measuring devices and a fourth distance measuring device for measuring a distance to a second surface, which is the same as the second surface on which a distance thereof is measured by the third distance measuring device, in a position, spaced apart from the third distance measuring device in the first direction.
It has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP§ 2144.04, part VI, B). In this instance, there has been no unexpected result disclosed due to the mere duplication of the first and second distance measuring device.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the first and second distance measuring devices as taught by Lee to have additional third and fourth distance measuring device with reasonable expectation of providing distance measuring as originally intended.
With regards to claim 4, Lee teaches the shape checking device for a bending material of claim 4. However, Lee is silent regarding wherein, in the first direction, a distance between the first and second distance measuring devices is different from a distance between the third and fourth distance measuring devices, and positions of the first to fourth distance measuring devices in the first direction are different from each other.
When a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious (Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 [189 USPQ 449] (1976)). In this particular case, Lee teaches a general condition of the placement of the distance measuring devices ([0038-0039]) and simply rearranging the distance measuring devices to another location while performing the same function would yield no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the first-fourth distance measuring devices as taught by Lee to locations within the apparatus including locations as claimed with reasonable expectation of providing desirable distance measuring as originally intended.
With regards to claim 5, Lee teaches the shape checking device for a bending material of claim 3. However, Lee is silent regarding wherein the first and third distance measuring devices are disposed in the same distance in the first direction, and the second and fourth distance measuring devices are also disposed in the same distance in the first direction.
When a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious (Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 [189 USPQ 449] (1976)). In this particular case, Lee teaches a general condition of the placement of the distance measuring devices ([0038-0039]) and simply rearranging the distance measuring devices to another location while performing the same function would yield no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the first-fourth distance measuring devices as taught by Lee to locations within the apparatus including locations as claimed with reasonable expectation of providing desirable distance measuring as originally intended.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 102178739 B1; IDS dated 04/18/2023 Foreign Patent Cite No. 1; see machine translation; hereinafter Lee) in view of Harris et al. (US Publication 2022/0275494; hereinafter Harris).
With regards to claim 6, Lee teaches the shape checking device for a bending material of claim 3, wherein the distance measuring device is an optical displacement sensor ([0039]). However, Lee is silent regarding wherein the first to fourth distance measuring devices are laser distance measuring devices.
Harris teaches an optical displacement sensor is a laser distance sensor ([0057]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the known type of laser optical displacement sensor as taught by Harris for the distance measuring devices as taught by Lee with reasonable expectation of measuring distance as originally intended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Remarks on pages 5-7, Applicant argues that Lee does not teach the limitation of “the distance measuring unit includes a first distance measuring device for measuring a distance to the second surface, and a second distance measuring device for measuring a distance to a second surface, identical to the second surface on which a distance thereof is measured by the first distance measuring device, in a position spaced apart from the first distance measuring device in a first direction, different from a bending forming direction of a material”. As can be seen in FIG. 5 of the present application below, a second distance measuring device (for example, element 54b) for measuring a distance to a second surface (for example, P2), identical to the second surface on which a distance thereof is measured by the first distance measuring device (for example, element 54a), is in a position spaced apart from the first distance measuring device in a first direction (for example, Y-direction), different from a bending forming direction (for example, X-direction) of a material. The measuring units of Lee are arranged on both lateral sides of the material in the bending direction. Accordingly, a clear structural difference exists in the positions of the measuring devices, and the surfaces that the measuring devices are capable of measuring also differ from those of the present application.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument because Lee does teach the claimed invention, not necessarily the disclosed invention. Specifically, Lee discloses wherein the distance measuring unit includes a first distance measuring device (left side 80; FIG. 1) for measuring a distance to the second surface (left surface of 1; FIG. 2), and a second distance measuring device (right side 80; FIG. 1) for measuring a distance to a second surface (left surface of 1; FIG. 2), identical to the second surface on which a distance thereof is measured by the first distance measuring device (see FIG. 1, the distance between the measuring device 80 and the object is appears to be equal on both sides), in a position spaced apart from the first distance measuring device in a first direction (right side 80 is spaced from left side 80 of FIG. 1 in the horizontal direction), different from a bending forming direction (FIG. 1-2 shows the material 1 is being bent in the downward direction, followed by a rotational direction pivoted by 42, thus the direction(s) is/are different from the horizontal direction of FIG. 1 and 2) of a material (FIG. 1; [0038-0040]). Thus, Lee is considered to teach the claimed invention including the directions as required.
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 QUANG X.L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, STEPHEN D. MEIER can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/QXN/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853