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 .
PRESS WORKING METHOD AND PRESS WORKING APPARATUS
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/202,639 Art Unit: 1727 December 27, 2025
DETAILED ACTION
The Application filed on May 26, 2023 has been received. Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukushima (US 2018/0257312 A1; as found in IDS dated 05/26/2023).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima (US 2018/0257312 A1; as found in IDS dated 05/26/2023).
As to Claim 1, Fukushima discloses a press working method, comprising: a piercing process of forming a passage hole 30 in a film material 12 by a punch 64 provided in a second die 42 which is performed in a state where the film is sandwiched between a first die 40 and the holding portion 62; and further comprising a trimming step, wherein a blade 74 cuts the film after the passage hole 30 is formed, and a plurality of insertion holes 70 through which each punch portion 64 is inserted are formed in the holding portion 62 (Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0043 and 0061]). The diameter of the insertion holes 70 are larger than a diameter of the punch portion 64 (Fig. 3 and 8). Therefore, in the piercing step, the punch portion 64 punches the film material in a state where the press working device is not in contact with the upper surface of the film in an adjacent portion surrounding the portion of the film punched by the punch portion 64.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima (US 2018/0257312 A1; as found in IDS dated 05/26/2023) in view of Taniguchi (JP 05104498 A; as found in IDS dated 11/26/2025 and using machine translation for citation purposes).
As to Claim 2, Fukushima does not specifically disclose the claimed trimming punch.
However, Taniguchi teaches of a press working method wherein a knockout plate (holder) presses and fixes the material where cutting is performed between the die and the punch after the material has been punched (paragraph [0010-0011]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Fukushima to comprise the claimed trimming punch holder and method step because Taniguchi teaches that the material to be cut is securely clamped and fixed, thereby preventing scratches or the like from being made on the sheet material (paragraph [0011]).
As to Claim 3, Fukushima does not specifically disclose wherein the film material is separated from the piercing punch by pressing down the upper surface of the film material by a pressing member, after trimming the material.
However, Taniguchi teaches wherein the film material is separated from the piercing punch by pressing down the upper surface of the film material by an ejector plate (pressing member) 31, after trimming the material. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Fukushima to comprise the claimed pressing member and method step because Taniguchi teaches that the material to be cut is securely clamped and fixed, thereby preventing scratches or the like from being made on the sheet material (paragraph [0011]).
As to Claim 4, modified Fukushima does not specifically disclose wherein the punch is moved upward when removing the film material, however there are a known finite number of options that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to try when removing the film material from the punch (moving the punch upwards/away from the film or leaving it stationary). The courts have held that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense,” see KSR, MPEP 2143, I, E. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Fukushima to move the punch away from the film when trying to remove the film from the punch because Taniguchi teaches that the material to be cut is securely clamped and fixed, thereby preventing scratches or the like from being made on the sheet material (paragraph [0011]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior arts of record, Fukushima, Taniguchi and Lake (US 4,242,074), do not specifically disclose, teach, or fairly suggest, the claimed method wherein the primary die comprises a die body and a frame- shaped protrusion protruding upward from the die body, and wherein placing the film material comprises placing the film material on a protruding end surface of the protrusion to straddle an inner hole formed by the protrusion; piercing the film material comprises punching out the film material placed on the protruding end surface of the protrusion by the piercing punch; and trimming the film material comprises cutting off the outer peripheral portion of the film material by the trimming punch and the die body (claim 5); or wherein the primary die comprises a die body and a protrusion protruding upward from the die body, and wherein separating the film material comprising separating the film material from the piercing punch in a state in which the film material is gripped by a pressing plate of the pressing member and the protrusion (claim 7). Lake teaches of a method and apparatus for trimming a material 15 held between two dies 12,13 with a trimmer 19 (Fig. 2). However, Lake does not specifically disclose wherein the holder is a trimming punch as claimed.
Claims 8-13 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior arts of record, Fukushima, Taniguchi and Lake, do not specifically disclose, teach, or fairly suggest, the claimed press working apparatus, wherein the first die comprises: a primary die on which the film material is placed; a secondary die disposed outside the primary die and vertically movable with respect to the primary die; and a first biasing member configured to bias the secondary die toward the second die, the second die comprises: a piercing punch for punching out the film material to form the passage hole in the film material; a holder disposed outside the piercing punch and vertically movable with respect to the piercing punch; and a second biasing member configured to bias the holder toward the first die, wherein the secondary die and the holder are configured to grip an outer peripheral portion of the film material together, and wherein the press working apparatus is configured to be out of contact with an upper surface of the film material in an adjacent portion surrounding a portion to be punched out by the piercing punch (claim 8).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727