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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/06/2026 has been entered.
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 and 4-7 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 recites “wherein the shape inferring unit calculates distortion generated in a material in the first direction”. The recited portion is unclear because “the shape inferring unit” has not been positively disclosed and its connection to other structural features are unknown. Thus, it is unclear how the shape inferring unit can calculate distortion of the material without knowing which data is being interpreted. Based on the previously cancelled claim (claim 2, dated 05/29/2026), it appears that the “shape inferring unit is connected to the distance measuring unit, and inferring a shape of a material from a result measured by the distance measuring unit, 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”. To further prosecution, the Examiner will examine the claims as such. It is suggested that Applicant further extrapolate how the shape inferring unit usage of the first to fourth distance measuring device to measure distortion to further distinguish the claimed invention from those of the prior art.
Claims 4-7 are rejected based on the indefiniteness of its parent claim, claim 1.
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 1, 4-5, and 7 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 1, Lee teaches 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, different from a bending forming direction of a material (FIG. 1; [0038-0040]), and
a third distance measuring device (right side 80; FIG. 1) for measuring a distance to a second surface, different from the second surface measured by the first measuring device (FIG. 1; [0038-0040]); wherein the shape inferring unit (a part of 70) calculates distortion generated in a material in the first direction ([0055-0056]).
However, Lee is silent regarding the distance measuring unit includes 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, and a fourth 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 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 results disclosed due to the mere duplication of the first and third 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 third distance measuring devices as taught by Lee to have additional second and fourth distance measuring devices with reasonable expectation of providing measured distances as originally intended. Thus, the duplication of the first and third distance measuring device of Lee would result in the distance measuring unit includes a second distance measuring device (duplication of left side 80 of FIG. 1, which would be located adjacent to left side 80 in the Z-direction (in-out direction of Figure)) 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, and a fourth distance measuring device (duplication of right side 80 of FIG. 1, which would be located adjacent to right side 80 in the Z-direction (in-out direction of Figure)) for measuring a distance to a second surface, identical to 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.
With regards to claim 4, Lee teaches the shape checking device for a bending material of claim . 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 1. 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.
With regards to claim 7, Lee teaches 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 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 1, 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 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Remarks on pages 7-8, Applicant argues that the claimed third and fourth distance measuring devices are not merely additional sensors performing the same measurement. Rather, they measure a second surface different from the second surface measured by the first and second distance measuring devices, thereby providing an additional set of measurement data from which the shape inferring unit calculates distortion in the first direction. The claimed configuration therefore produces a measurement capability that is qualitatively different from simply increasing the number of sensors measuring the same surface. Lee does not disclose or suggest such a configuration. Lee merely discloses a bending angle measuring unit disposed around the die and a shape inferring unit that determines the shape of the workpiece based on measurements obtained from the disclosed measuring unit. Nothing in Lee teaches or suggests providing two independent pairs of distance measuring devices that respectively measure different second surfaces and cooperate to calculate distortion in the first direction as required by amended claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument because Lee does teach the claimed invention, not necessarily the disclosed invention. Specifically, Lee teaches the third and fourth distance measuring device as presented in the rejection above. It is acknowledged that Lee does not teach the disclosed invention. However, the claims do not reflect what is being disclosed in the Specification. The claims merely required the second and fourth distance measuring devices to perform the same function as the first and third distance measuring devices (see rejection above). Furthermore, the shape inferring unit merely recites the calculation of distortion without clarifying what is needed to perform such calculation. Thus, it is suggested that Applicant further clarify on how the first-fourth distance measuring devices are used in conjunction with the shape inferring unit to calculate distortion. Such clarification would easily overcome the teaching of Lee.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights