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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/13/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 39 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The apparatuses of claims 1 or 37 could be used in another manner, such as not approximating the tools together in order to form a workpiece.
Since applicant has previously elected the apparatus claims in the election filed 8/26/2024 and received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 39 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not describe the amended claim limitations to claim 1 and new claim 37 including the second stamping surface having a forming surface that contacts the workpiece. Applicant notes that Mitsuyoshi describes the viscous body 43 is enclosed by the thin plates 41 and therefore does not contact the workpiece. Applicant also notes that other references also do not describe the surface contacting the workpiece. While Examiner agrees that the viscous body 43 does not contact the workpiece due to the thin plates 41, Examiner notes there is another embodiment in which a similar component, rubber member 5, is not enclosed by thin plates. When combined with the cited embodiment of Mitsuyoshi, this rubber member 5 meets the claim. The dependent claims also remain rejected in view of the above. Claim 39 is withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected group.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9, 11, 20, 22-23, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuyoshi (TW201022004A, see English translation provided, equivalent of JP 2010137497 made of record on IDS dated 5/13/2024) modified by Mitsuyoshi II (JP5073430B2, see English translation provided.)
Regarding claim 1, Mitsuyoshi meets the claimed, An apparatus for stamp forming a workpiece, the apparatus comprising: a first tool having a thickness along a stamping axis and defining a first stamping surface extending from the stamping axis; (Mitsuyoshi [0045] describes an upper mold portion 3B, see Figure 1 showing the stamping surface facing down towards the lower mold) a second tool comprising an elastomeric member, (Mitsuyoshi [0045] describes a lower mold portion 3A, having a silicone rubber viscous body 43, see [0116]) the elastomeric member having a thickness along the stamping axis and defining a second stamping surface to face the workpiece, the second stamping surface being elastomeric and axially opposing the first stamping surface, (Mitsuyoshi [0116] describes silicone rubber viscous body 43, Figure 2 shows the top surface of 43 on the lower mold portion which is axially opposed to the upper mold portion 3B and faces towards workpiece W) wherein the elastomeric member defines a periphery spaced from the stamping axis; wherein the elastomeric member is deformed along the periphery in response to approximating the first tool and the second tool to compress the workpiece and an elastic boundary disposed proximate to at least a portion of the periphery of the elastomeric member (Mitsuyoshi [0112] and Figure 7 shows the viscous body 43 which has a peripheral end which faces an elastic frame member 42 and Figure 9 shows how the body 43 is deformed along the periphery) wherein the elastic boundary comprises at least one movable sidewall that defines an interior portion of the elastic boundary facing the periphery of the elastomeric member, (Mitsuyoshi [0120] and Figure 7 shows the elastic frame member 42 has a first elastic frame material 421 which is on the inner portion of the frame member 42 and faces the periphery of the viscous body 43 and compresses and moves, see Figure 9) wherein the elastic boundary further comprises at least one non- movable support that defines a peripheral portion of the elastic boundary opposite the interior portion, wherein the at least one movable sidewall resists the deformation of the elastomeric member (Mitsuyoshi [0123] and Figures 7 shows a second elastic frame member 422 which is on the outer peripheral portion of the frame member 42 and does not move when the first frame material 421 moves.)
PNG
media_image1.png
502
1040
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The above cited embodiment of Mitsuyoshi shows a thin plate 41 between the viscous body 43 and the workpiece and does not meet the claimed, a second stamping surface that comprises a forming surface of the elastomeric member configured to contact the workpiece during stamp forming, however, Mitsuyoshi [0164] describes an alternative configuration using rubber member 5. In this embodiment, there are no thin plates separating the rubber member from the workpiece and when combined with the previously cited embodiment, the rubber member 5 would directly contact the workpiece.
The courts have held that substituting one known prior art element for another according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the viscous body 43 having the thin plates 41 of the previous embodiment of Mitsuyoshi with the rubber member 5 of the embodiment shown in Figure 23 which does not have thin plates because it can successfully transfer heat to the workpiece during pressing without using additional plates, see Mitsuyoshi [0164].
Mitsuyoshi Figures 7 and 9 show the body 43 moving towards the center as opposed to towards the frame member 422 and does not meet the claimed, wherein the at least one movable sidewall moves towards the at least one non-movable support in response to deformation of the elastomeric member during the approximating of the first tool and the second tool.
Analogous in the field of stamping or pressing apparatus, Mitsuyoshi II meets the claimed, wherein the at least one movable sidewall moves towards the at least one non-movable support in response to deformation of the elastomeric member during the approximating of the first tool and the second tool (Mitsuyoshi II [0041] describes a press apparatus which includes a flexible top plate 140, which has a sidewall, which is deformed outward by receiving a pressing force from the compressed rubber member 138 (elastomeric member) The flexible top plate 140 expands outwards towards the walls of the frame body 120.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the first elastic frame material 421 of Mitsuyoshi that moves inwards with the flexible top plate 140 of Mitsuyoshi II which moves outwards because it is a known format for absorbing the compression of the other members in the press apparatus and preventing leakage of the other members, see Mitsuyoshi [0041].
Regarding claim 2, Mitsuyoshi meets the claimed, wherein the first stamping surface extends radially from the stamping axis (see Mitsuyoshi Figure 1 showing the stamping axis as vertical and the stamping surface perpendicular to vertical.)
Regarding claim 3, Mitsuyoshi meets the claimed, The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the periphery defined by the elastomeric member is radially spaced from the stamping axis (see Mitsuyoshi Figure 7 showing the stamping axis as vertical and periphery as horizontally located from the stamping axis.)
Regarding claim 4, Mitsuyoshi meets the claimed, The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the elastic boundary substantially borders the elastomeric member (Mitsuyoshi [0112]-[0115] describe the viscous body 43 and the elastic frame member 42, see Figure 7 showing them next to one another.)
Regarding claim 5, Mitsuyoshi meets the claimed, The apparatus of Claim 1, the second tool further comprising: a support structure having a thickness along the stamping axis and defining a support surface opposing the first stamping surface of the first tool (Mitsuyoshi [0117] describes a temperature control plate 33 which supports the viscous body 43, see Figure 1 showing the support surface.)
Regarding claim 6, Mitsuyoshi meets the claimed, The apparatus of Claim 5, wherein the elastomeric member is disposed between the first stamping surface of the first tool and the support surface of the support structure (Mitsuyoshi Figure 1 shows the viscous member 43 between the upper mold portion 3B and the temperature control plate 33.)
Regarding claim 7, Mitsuyoshi meets the claimed) The apparatus of Claim 5, wherein the elastomeric member is at least temporarily secured to the support surface of the support structure (Mitsuyoshi [0117] describes a temperature control plate 33 to which the viscous body 43 is attached.)
Regarding claim 8, Mitsuyoshi meets the claimed, The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the elastic boundary defines the interior portion radially spaced from the stamping axis, wherein the elastic boundary is disposed such that the interior portion opposes the periphery of the elastomeric member (Mitsuyoshi Figure 7 shows interior portion of the elastic frame 42 spaces apart from the stamping axis which is vertical through the center of the viscous member 43.)
Regarding claim 9, Mitsuyoshi meets the claimed, The apparatus of Claim 8, wherein the elastic boundary defines the peripheral portion opposite the interior portion, wherein the interior portion faces an exterior surface of the periphery of the elastomeric member (Mitsuyoshi Figure 7 shows the peripheral portion of the elastic frame 42.)
Regarding claim 11, Mitsuyoshi meets the claimed, The apparatus of Claim 10, wherein the at least one biasing element comprises one or more of a spring, a coil spring, a leaf spring, an actuator, an electrical actuator, a pneumatic actuator, a hydraulic actuator, a ball screw actuator, an elastomeric insert, a pneumatic bladder insert, and a shape memory alloy insert (Mitsuyoshi [0112] describes a first elastic frame member 421.)
Regarding claim 20, Mitsuyoshi meets the claimed, The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the elastic boundary has a stiffness characteristic that is stiffer than that of the elastomeric member (Mitsuyoshi [0113] describes the first elastic frame 421 has a Shore hardness and resists deformation, see [0123] describing the first elastic frame 421 also resists deformation by the expanding viscous body box 4 when compressed.)
Regarding claim 22, Mitsuyoshi meets the claimed, The apparatus of Claim 20, wherein the stiffness characteristic of the elastic boundary is tunable to an alternate elastomeric member by replacement of the elastic boundary with an alternate elastic boundary having an alternate stiffness characteristic (Mitsuyoshi [0013] and [0116]-[0117] disclose replacing the viscous body 43 and an alternative material including grease polysilicone.)
Regarding claim 23, Mitsuyoshi meets the claimed, The apparatus of Claim 20, wherein the stiffness characteristic of the elastic boundary is tunable to an alternate elastomeric member by adjustment of the elastic boundary to have an alternate stiffness characteristic (Mitsuyoshi [0013] and [0116]-[0117] disclose replacing the viscous body 43 and an alternative material including grease polysilicone, a polysilicone material would be capable of moving in response to deformation.)
Regarding claim 37, Mitsuyoshi meets the claimed, An apparatus for stamp forming a workpiece, comprising: a first tool; (Mitsuyoshi [0045] describes an upper mold portion 3B) a second tool comprising: an elastomeric member having: (Mitsuyoshi [0045] describes a lower mold portion 3A, having a silicone rubber viscous body 43, see [0116]) a periphery; (Mitsuyoshi [0112] and Figure 7 shows the viscous body 43 which has a peripheral end which faces an elastic frame member 42) wherein the workpiece is compressed between the first tool and the forming surface of the elastomeric member; (Mitsuyoshi [0066] describe the substrate m being compressed) a support structure supporting the elastomeric member opposite the forming surface; (Mitsuyoshi [0117] describes a temperature control plate 33 which supports the viscous body 43, see Figure 1 showing the support surface) and an elastic boundary disposed adjacent the periphery of the elastomeric member, the elastic boundary comprising: a movable sidewall positioned adjacent the periphery of the elastomeric member; (Mitsuyoshi [0120] and Figure 7 shows the elastic frame member 42 has a first elastic frame material 421 which is on the inner portion of the frame member 42 and faces the periphery of the viscous body 43 and compresses and moves, see Figure 9)and a non-movable support spaced from the movable sidewall; (Mitsuyoshi [0123] and Figures 7 shows a second elastic frame member 422 which is on the outer peripheral portion of the frame member 42 and does not move when the first frame material 421 moves)
The above cited embodiment of Mitsuyoshi shows a thin plate 41 between the viscous body 43 and the workpiece and does not meet the claimed, and a forming surface configured to contact the workpiece during stamp forming, however, Mitsuyoshi [0164] describes an alternative configuration using rubber member 5. In this embodiment, there are no thin plates separating the rubber member from the workpiece and when combined with the previously cited embodiment, the rubber member 5 would directly contact the workpiece.
The courts have held that substituting one known prior art element for another according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the viscous body 43 having the thin plates 41 of the previous embodiment of Mitsuyoshi with the rubber member 5 of the embodiment shown in Figure 23 which does not have thin plates because it can successfully transfer heat to the workpiece during pressing without using additional plates, see Mitsuyoshi [0164].
Mitsuyoshi Figures 7 and 9 show the body 43 moving towards the center as opposed to towards the frame member 422 and does not meet the claimed, wherein deformation of the elastomeric member during compression of the workpiece causes lateral expansion of the elastomeric member toward the movable sidewall, and wherein the movable sidewall moves toward the non-movable support in response to the lateral expansion of the elastomeric member.
Analogous in the field of stamping or pressing apparatus, Mitsuyoshi II meets the claimed, wherein deformation of the elastomeric member during compression of the workpiece causes lateral expansion of the elastomeric member toward the movable sidewall, and wherein the movable sidewall moves toward the non-movable support in response to the lateral expansion of the elastomeric member (Mitsuyoshi II [0041] describes a press apparatus which includes a flexible top plate 140, which has a sidewall, which is deformed outward by receiving a pressing force from the compressed rubber member 138 (elastomeric member) The flexible top plate 140 expands outwards towards the walls of the frame body 120.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the first elastic frame material 421 of Mitsuyoshi that moves inwards with the flexible top plate 140 of Mitsuyoshi II which moves outwards because it is a known format for absorbing the compression of the other members in the press apparatus and preventing leakage of the other members, see Mitsuyoshi [0041].
Claims 10,12, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuyoshi as applied to claim 1 or claim 37 above and in further view of Fischer (US 2018/0257295).
Regarding claim 10, Mitsuyoshi [0115] describes an elastic frame member 421 which meets the claimed, The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the elastic boundary defines the interior portion radially spaced from the stamping axis and the peripheral portion opposite the interior portion, (Mitsuyoshi Figure 7 shows the interior portion of the elastic frame 42 and the peripheral portion of the first elastic frame 421) wherein the interior portion is formed by at the at least one movable sidewall, wherein the peripheral portion comprises the at least one non-movable support, (Mitsuyoshi [0123] describes the edge of the elastic frame 42 which forms the interior portion moves but the second elastic frame material 422 does not move and holds the first frame 421 in place.)
Mitsuyoshi does not describe an additional biasing element and does not meet the claimed, the elastic boundary further comprising: at least one biasing element disposed between the at least one movable sidewall and the at least one non-movable support.
Analogous in the field of stamping, Fischer also discloses a stamp/pressing device which includes a stamp surrounded by a frame. Fischer meets the claimed, the elastic boundary further comprising: at least one biasing element disposed between the at least one movable sidewall and the at least one non-movable support (Fischer [0055]-[0054] describes a spring system 13 which couples clamping strips to the frame 3.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the elastic frame of Mitsuyoshi with the spring of Fischer in order to increase the flexibility of the stamp under stress, see Fischer [0055].
Regarding claim 12, Mitsuyoshi does not meet the claimed, The apparatus of Claim 10, wherein the at least one biasing element comprises a spring.
Analogous in the field of stamping, Fischer also discloses a stamp/pressing device which includes a stamp surrounded by a frame. Fischer meets the claimed, wherein the at least one biasing element comprises a spring (Fischer [0055] describes a frame 3 contains clamping strips 4/4’ which use a spring system 13 to couple the frame 3 to the stamp 1 thereby increasing the flexibility of the stamp 1.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the elastic frame of Mitsuyoshi with the spring of Fischer in order to increase the flexibility of the stamp under stress, see Fischer [0055].
Regarding clam 38, Mitsuyoshi does not describe an additional biasing element and does not meet the claimed, The apparatus of claim 37, wherein the elastic boundary further comprises a biasing element disposed between the movable sidewall and the non-movable support, the biasing element configured to resist movement of the movable sidewall toward the non- movable support.
Analogous in the field of stamping, Fischer also discloses a stamp/pressing device which includes a stamp surrounded by a frame. Fischer meets the claimed, The apparatus of claim 37, wherein the elastic boundary further comprises a biasing element disposed between the movable sidewall and the non-movable support, the biasing element configured to resist movement of the movable sidewall toward the non- movable support (Fischer [0055] describes a frame 3 contains clamping strips 4/4’ which use a spring system 13 to couple the frame 3 to the stamp 1 thereby increasing the flexibility of the stamp 1.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the elastic frame of Mitsuyoshi with the spring of Fischer in order to increase the flexibility of the stamp under stress, see Fischer [0055].
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Mitsuyoshi as applied to claim 10 above and in further view Fischer (US 2018/0257295) as applied to claim 10 above and in further view of Simon (DE4428116, see translation previously provided.)
Regarding claim 13, Mitsuyoshi does not meet the claimed, The apparatus of Claim 10, wherein the at least one biasing element comprises a coil spring and an adjustment mechanism the adjustment mechanism comprising: a threaded rod along a central axis of the coil spring and between a select movable sidewall and the peripheral portion; an adjustment ring on the threaded rod and adjacent to the coil spring to control the preload tension; and a jam ring between the adjustment ring and the peripheral portion to lock the adjustment ring at a predetermined preload tension. Analogous in the field of stamping, Fischer also discloses a stamp/pressing device which includes a stamp surrounded by a frame. Fischer meets the claimed, The apparatus of Claim 10, wherein the at least one biasing element comprises a coil spring (Fischer [0055] describes a frame 3 contains clamping strips 4/4’ which use a spring system 13 to couple the frame 3 to the stamp 1 thereby increasing the flexibility of the stamp 1.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the elastic frame of Mitsuyoshi with the spring of Fischer in order to increase the flexibility of the stamp under stress, see Fischer [0055].
Analogous in the field of stamping devices, Simon discloses a stamping device with springs and a tensioning system for the springs and meets the claimed, and a mechanism to adjust a preload tension on the coil spring, the mechanism comprising: a threaded rod along a central axis of the coil spring and between a select movable sidewall and the peripheral portion; an adjustment ring on the threaded rod and adjacent to the coil spring to control the preload tension; and a jam ring between the adjustment ring and the peripheral portion to lock the adjustment ring at a predetermined preload tension (Simon [0017]-[0018] describe a spring 34 of which the preload can be adjusted via an adjustment ring 28 (adjustment ring) and intermediate ring 30 (jam ring) on a thread.)
The courts have held that the use of a known device to improve a similar device to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the spring of Mitsuyoshi as modified by Fischer with the preload adjustment mechanism described in Simon in order to adjust the length of the spring, see Simon [0018].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. 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.
/V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744