DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Newly amended and submitted claims submitted February 13, 2026 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The preamble in claim 1 filed February 13, 2026 recites “An apparatus for bending a profile having first and second surfaces, emphasis on the phrase “bending a profile having first and second surfaces.” The body of claim 2 (per the amendments filed February 13, 2026) and the supporting dependent claims are directed to bending the profile.
Claim 10 submitted February 13, 2026 is directed to “An apparatus configured for inducing controlled bending of a longitudinal profile without separating portions of the profile.”
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, in which the preamble was directed to “An apparatus for making cuts on a profile (per the claims filed July 5, 2023, June 10, 2024, February 3, 2025, and August 13, 2025) this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, all the claims have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the processor (Claim 2, line 3),” “a plurality of fold-inducing cuts (Claim 2, line 3),” “target bend radius (Claim 2, line 5),” “localized hinge regions (Claim 1, line 9),” “a depth-limiting mechanism (Claim 10, line 7),” (a transverse translation mechanism (Claim 10, line 10),” “physical stop (Claim 11, line 2),” and “hinge region (Claim 12, line 1” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed February 13, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Regarding claim 2 (line 3-4), the phrase “to determine positions of a plurality of fold-inducing cuts…based on a target bend radius associated with a desired curvature of the profile” is new matter. The specification does not set forth any details to the phrase “fold-inducing cuts.” Page 5, Para [0032] sets forth Thus, in the illustrated embodiment of FIG. 4, in anticipation of the profile 110 being folded along Line A, the cutting unit 20 provides two “V” cuts on each side of Line A and one “V” cut centered at Line A, for a total of five “V” cuts. Although cuts in this embodiment are described as five “V” cuts, any shape and/or any number of cuts can be made on the ribs to facilitate the folding process. For example, five “V” cuts can provide easy folding of the profile 110 into approximately 300-degree angle (see angle C in FIG. 5). However, less or more number of cuts can provide easy folding of the profile 110 into angles less than or greater than 300 degrees. Further, the cut shape can be made in “U” shape or any other appropriate shape rather than a “V” shape. In other embodiments, the size of the V cut can be controlled to determine the angle of the fold. The disclosure as a whole nor does Para [0032] set forth any details what defines a “fold-inducing cut.” The disclosure as a whole and Para [0032} further do not provide any support for a processer determining positions of fold-inducing cuts based on a target bend radius associated with a desired curvature of the profile. Para [0032] and Figure 5, at best disclose V-cuts provided in the profile to fold the profile approximately 300 degrees. This does not provide support for “a target bend radius associated with a desired curvature of the profile.” What is the target bend radius? Is this number input by a user? What is the desired curvature of the profile? How is this determined? Is this a numerical value input by the user? How do forming V-shaped cuts permit the profile to curve?
Regarding claim 2 (lines 6-10), the phrase “the processor determines the positions based on a target bend radius of the profile and computes the plurality of fold-inducing cuts defining localized hinge regions that plastically deform without separating the profile segments” is new matter. As set forth above, the disclosure as a whole does not provide any details to a target bend radius of the profile. The disclosure further does not provide any details to the processor computing the plurality of fold-inducing cuts defining localized hinge regions that plastically deform without separating the profile segments. What is the target bend radius? What permits the cuts to define a localized hinge regions that plastically deform without separating profile segments? Do the V-shape cuts lead to localized hinge regions?
Regarding claim 2 (lines 14-15), the phrase “the cutter to form the plurality of fold-inducing cuts…while remining surface-tracking along the first surface” is new matter. The disclosure has not set forth any details to the phrase “fold-inducing cuts.” Para [0032] set forth Thus, in the illustrated embodiment of FIG. 4, in anticipation of the profile 110 being folded along Line A, the cutting unit 20 provides two “V” cuts on each side of Line A and one “V” cut centered at Line A, for a total of five “V” cuts. Although cuts in this embodiment are described as five “V” cuts, any shape and/or any number of cuts can be made on the ribs to facilitate the folding process. For example, five “V” cuts can provide easy folding of the profile 110 into approximately 300-degree angle (see angle C in FIG. 5). However, less or more number of cuts can provide easy folding of the profile 110 into angles less than or greater than 300 degrees. Further, the cut shape can be made in “U” shape or any other appropriate shape rather than a “V” shape. In other embodiments, the size of the V cut can be controlled to determine the angle of the fold. What is a fold-inducing cut? Para [0032] nor the disclosure as a whole has provided any insight to whether the V-cuts are fold-inducing cuts or if the fold-inducing cuts are different from the V-shape cuts. The phrase “while remining surface-tracking along the first surface of the profile” is new matter. The disclosure does not provide any details to how the cutting forms the plurality of fold-inducing cuts while remaining surface-tracking along the first surface of the profile? What permits surface-tracking? Is there a motor or a track or a guide that permits surface tracking?
Regarding claim 2 (line 18-20), the phrase “wherein the plurality of fold-inducing cuts are formed to define localized hinge regions that permit bending deformation without separating portions of the profile” is new matter. How do hinge regions permit bending deformation? Bending deformation is defined as occurring when a normal force is applied to a beam or frame and the beam is under stress. Is there a particular region of the hinge that experiences more stress than the others leading to bending deformation?
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “each cut formed in the rib produces elastic-plastic deformation while maintaining structural continuity of the rib” is new matter. The disclosure did not provide any details to each cut producing elastic-plastic deformation. What permits elastic-plastic deformation to occur during cutting?
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “the stopper limitations penetration depth of the cutting to less than a rib thickness measured normal to the first surface” is new matter. There are no details in the disclosure to the stopper limiting the depth to less than a rib thickness measured normal to the first surface. Figure 4A appears to have a cut extending through the thickness of the rib 110a. Page 9, Para [0042] states “At the initial stage of the cutting process (as shown in FIG. 9), the depth of a cut to be made on the ribs of the profiles is determined. Once the cutting depth is determined, the distance by which the cutter driving motor 75, and hence the cutter 70, is to be moved forward in the Z-axis direction can be set by the positioning of the stopper 72 between the securing wheel 59 and the support member 95. For example, if the cutting depth to be made on the profile 110 is set as a deep cut, then a second cylinder 77 is driven so that a thin front end 72a of the stopper 72 is positioned between the securing wheel 59 and the support member 95 (see FIG. 9A) so that the cutter 70 can be moved forward deeply into the profile along the Z-axis direction. However, if the cutting depth to be made on the profile 110 is set as a shallow cut, then a second cylinder 77 is driven so that a thick rear end 72b of the stopper 72 is positioned between the securing wheel 59 and the support member 95 (see FIG. 9B) so that the cutter 70 can be moved forward less than when the thin front end 72a is used.” Para [0042] discloses how to set a deep or shallow cut, but there are no details to the stopper limiting the depth of the cutter to less than a rib thickness.
Regarding claim 8, the processor determines bend angles using a stored bend-radius mapping table” is new matter. Page 10-11, Para [0048] states “in other embodiments, the teachings embodied in the method(s) can also be implemented as computer programs stored in storage medium.” This is the only mention in the disclosure to the processor. There are no specific details of the processor being able to determine bend angles using stored a bend-radius mapping table. Figure 12 provides details to a process, but there are no detailed steps to determining bend angles using a stored bend-radius mapping table.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “wherein the processor computes spacing of the plurality of fold-inducing cuts as a function of bend radius and material thickness of the profile” is new matter. As set forth above, Page 10-11, Para [0048] states “in other embodiments, the teachings embodied in the method(s) can also be implemented as computer programs stored in storage medium.” This is the only mention to a processor in the disclosure. There are no details of the processor computing spacing of the plurality of fold-inducing cuts. What is a fold-inducing cut? There are no details to the fold-inducing cut being a function of the bend radius and the material thickness. What is the bend radius? How is this determined? Is it determined based on the material? Pg. 4, Para [0028] discloses “Accordingly, the term “profile” is used throughout this disclosure to mean board or strip having ribs or tabs, and is made of metallic and/or other rigid/semi-rigid material.” The term “metallic” is a generic term for metals and/or metal alloys and does not provide any correlation to a material thickness.
Regarding claim 10 (line 10), the phrase “a depth-limiting mechanism mechanically coupled to the cutter and configured to restrict penetration of the cutting element to a depth less than a thickness of material forming the longitudinal profile” is new matter. The specification does not provide any details to a depth-limiting mechanism mechanically coupled to the cutting…to restrict penetration of the cutting element to a depth less than a thickness of material forming the longitudinal profile. At best the stopper (72) as set forth in the disclosure limits the depth of the cut. Para [0042] discloses how to set a deep or shallow cut, but there are no details to the depth-limiting mechanism being the stopper and/or restricting penetration of the cutting element to a depth less than a thickness of material forming the longitudinal profile.
Regarding claim 10 (lines 13-15), the phrase “wherein the cutter assembly is configured to form deformation-inducing cuts defining hinge regions that permit bending of the longitudinal profile while maintaining integral continuity of the profile” is new matter. The disclosure has not set forth any details to the cutting assembly forming deformation-inducing cuts. What permits a cut to be a deformation-inducing cut? What type of deformation is occurring during the cut?
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “each hinge region corresponds to a localized reduction in bending stiffness of the profile” is new matter. There are no details in the disclosure to a hinge region. Para [0032] discloses a “folding line” and “V” cuts can provide easy folding of the profile into approximately 300 degree-angle; however, there are no further details to a hinge region. The disclosure has further not provided details to the terms “hinge region” and “V” cuts and/or “cuts” being interchangeable terms.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “the deformation-inducing cuts are configured to permit elastic-plastic bending without fracture to the profile” is new matter. What permits the cuts to be deformation-inducing? How do cuts permit elastic-plastic bending without fracture? Does the material have any significance to fracturing the profile during bending?
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “the depth-limiting mechanism prevents penetration beyond a value strictly less than one-half of a profile thickness, and the deformation-inducing cuts produce bending without material separation” is new matter. The specification has not set forth any details to the depth-limiting mechanism; therefore, there are no details as to how the depth-limiting mechanism to prevents penetration. Para [0033] set forth scratch lines 118 have a depth that is approximately one-third of the thickness in the profile. While there is no mention of limiting the depth in Para [0033], there is a reference to a thickness in the profile. Para [0042] provides details that a stopper is movable between a deep and shallow position with respect to the profile. There are no details in Para [0042] to the depth-limiting mechanism preventing penetration beyond a value strictly less than one-half of a profile thickness. There are further no details in the disclosure to deformation-inducing cuts produce bending without material separation. How is a cut deformation-inducing? Further, how does a deformation-induced cut produce bending? Doesn’t bending require an external force? How does a cut produce bending without material separation?
Regarding claim 16, wherein the cutter assembly is configured solely for forming partial-depth cuts and is mechanically incapable of performing through-cuts that divide the profile into multiple pieces” is new matter. The disclosure provides details to the cutting assembly, but does not set forth any details to the assembly being configured to solely form partial depth cuts and being mechanically incapable of performing through cuts that divide the profile into multiple pieces. As shown in at least Figure 4B, the “V” cuts are through cuts in a vertical direction which divide the profile into multiple pieces. For instance each “V” is a piece. It is further unclear what permits the cutter assembly to be incapable of performing through cuts and only partial-depth cuts.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “wherein the cutter assembly lacks opposing cutting members arranged for cooperative severing of material” is new matter. As best seen in at least Figure 6, the cutter has a contoured shape. There are a plurality of diametrically opposed cutting members for severing material. How does the cutter assembly lack opposing cutting members?
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1-17 are replete with the term “form” which implies a method step; however, the preamble of the claims is directed to an apparatus. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a depth-limiting mechanism mechanically coupled to the cutting assembly in claim 10
a transverse translation mechanism configured to move in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 2 (line 3-4), the phrase “to determine positions of a plurality of fold-inducing cuts…based on a target bend radius associated with a desired curvature of the profile” was not described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey to one skill in the art that one had possession of the invention at the time of filing and is new matter. The specification does not set forth any details to the phrase “fold-inducing cuts.” Page 5, Para [0032] sets forth Thus, in the illustrated embodiment of FIG. 4, in anticipation of the profile 110 being folded along Line A, the cutting unit 20 provides two “V” cuts on each side of Line A and one “V” cut centered at Line A, for a total of five “V” cuts. Although cuts in this embodiment are described as five “V” cuts, any shape and/or any number of cuts can be made on the ribs to facilitate the folding process. For example, five “V” cuts can provide easy folding of the profile 110 into approximately 300-degree angle (see angle C in FIG. 5). However, less or more number of cuts can provide easy folding of the profile 110 into angles less than or greater than 300 degrees. Further, the cut shape can be made in “U” shape or any other appropriate shape rather than a “V” shape. In other embodiments, the size of the V cut can be controlled to determine the angle of the fold. The disclosure as a whole nor does Para [0032] set forth any details what defines a “fold-inducing cut.” The disclosure as a whole and Para [0032} further do not provide any support for a processer determining positions of fold-inducing cuts based on a target bend radius associated with a desired curvature of the profile. Para [0032] and Figure 5, at best disclose V-cuts provided in the profile to fold the profile approximately 300 degrees. This does not provide support for “a target bend radius associated with a desired curvature of the profile.” What is the target bend radius? Is this number input by a user? What is the desired curvature of the profile? How is this determined? Is this a numerical value input by the user? How do forming V-shaped cuts permit the profile to curve?
Regarding claim 2 (lines 6-10), the phrase “the processor determines the positions based on a target bend radius of the profile and computes the plurality of fold-inducing cuts defining localized hinge regions that plastically deform without separating the profile segments” was not described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey to one skill in the art that one had possession of the invention at the time of filing and is new matter. As set forth above, the disclosure as a whole does not provide any details to a target bend radius of the profile. The disclosure further does not provide any details to the processor computing the plurality of fold-inducing cuts defining localized hinge regions that plastically deform without separating the profile segments. What is the target bend radius? What permits the cuts to define a localized hinge regions that plastically deform without separating profile segments? Do the V-shape cuts lead to localized hinge regions?
Regarding claim 2 (lines 14-15), the phrase “the cutter to form the plurality of fold-inducing cuts…while remining surface-tracking along the first surface” was not described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey to one skill in the art that one had possession of the invention at the time of filing and is new matter. The disclosure has not set forth any details to the phrase “fold-inducing cuts.” Para [0032] set forth Thus, in the illustrated embodiment of FIG. 4, in anticipation of the profile 110 being folded along Line A, the cutting unit 20 provides two “V” cuts on each side of Line A and one “V” cut centered at Line A, for a total of five “V” cuts. Although cuts in this embodiment are described as five “V” cuts, any shape and/or any number of cuts can be made on the ribs to facilitate the folding process. For example, five “V” cuts can provide easy folding of the profile 110 into approximately 300-degree angle (see angle C in FIG. 5). However, less or more number of cuts can provide easy folding of the profile 110 into angles less than or greater than 300 degrees. Further, the cut shape can be made in “U” shape or any other appropriate shape rather than a “V” shape. In other embodiments, the size of the V cut can be controlled to determine the angle of the fold. What is a fold-inducing cut? Para [0032] nor the disclosure as a whole has provided any insight to whether the V-cuts are fold-inducing cuts or if the fold-inducing cuts are different from the V-shape cuts. The phrase “while remining surface-tracking along the first surface of the profile” is new matter. The disclosure does not provide any details to how the cutting forms the plurality of fold-inducing cuts while remaining surface-tracking along the first surface of the profile? What permits surface-tracking? Is there a motor or a track or a guide that permits surface tracking?
Regarding claim 2 (line 18-20), the phrase “wherein the plurality of fold-inducing cuts are formed to define localized hinge regions that permit bending deformation without separating portions of the profile” was not described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey to one skill in the art that one had possession of the invention at the time of filing and is new matter. How do hinge regions permit bending deformation? Bending deformation is defined as occurring when a normal force is applied to a beam or frame and the beam is under stress. Is there a particular region of the hinge that experiences more stress than the others leading to bending deformation?
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “each cut formed in the rib produces elastic-plastic deformation while maintaining structural continuity of the rib” was not described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey to one skill in the art that one had possession of the invention at the time of filing and is new matter. The disclosure did not provide any details to each cut producing elastic-plastic deformation. What permits elastic-plastic deformation to occur during cutting?
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “the stopper limitations penetration depth of the cutting to less than a rib thickness measured normal to the first surface” was not described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey to one skill in the art that one had possession of the invention at the time of filing and is new matter. There are no details in the disclosure to the stopper limiting the depth to less than a rib thickness measured normal to the first surface. Figure 4A appears to have a cut extending through the thickness of the rib 110a. Page 9, Para [0042] states “At the initial stage of the cutting process (as shown in FIG. 9), the depth of a cut to be made on the ribs of the profiles is determined. Once the cutting depth is determined, the distance by which the cutter driving motor 75, and hence the cutter 70, is to be moved forward in the Z-axis direction can be set by the positioning of the stopper 72 between the securing wheel 59 and the support member 95. For example, if the cutting depth to be made on the profile 110 is set as a deep cut, then a second cylinder 77 is driven so that a thin front end 72a of the stopper 72 is positioned between the securing wheel 59 and the support member 95 (see FIG. 9A) so that the cutter 70 can be moved forward deeply into the profile along the Z-axis direction. However, if the cutting depth to be made on the profile 110 is set as a shallow cut, then a second cylinder 77 is driven so that a thick rear end 72b of the stopper 72 is positioned between the securing wheel 59 and the support member 95 (see FIG. 9B) so that the cutter 70 can be moved forward less than when the thin front end 72a is used.” Para [0042] discloses how to set a deep or shallow cut, but there are no details to the stopper limiting the depth of the cutter to less than a rib thickness.
Regarding claim 8, the processor determines bend angles using a stored bend-radius mapping table” was not described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey to one skill in the art that one had possession of the invention at the time of filing and is new matter. Page 10-11, Para [0048] states “in other embodiments, the teachings embodied in the method(s) can also be implemented as computer programs stored in storage medium.” This is the only mention in the disclosure to the processor. There are no specific details of the processor being able to determine bend angles using stored a bend-radius mapping table. Figure 12 provides details to a process, but there are no detailed steps to determining bend angles using a stored bend-radius mapping table.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “wherein the processor computes spacing of the plurality of fold-inducing cuts as a function of bend radius and material thickness of the profile” was not described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey to one skill in the art that one had possession of the invention at the time of filing and is new matter. As set forth above, Page 10-11, Para [0048] states “in other embodiments, the teachings embodied in the method(s) can also be implemented as computer programs stored in storage medium.” This is the only mention to a processor in the disclosure. There are no details of the processor computing spacing of the plurality of fold-inducing cuts. What is a fold-inducing cut? There are no details to the fold-inducing cut being a function of the bend radius and the material thickness. What is the bend radius? How is this determined? Is it determined based on the material? Pg. 4, Para [0028] discloses “Accordingly, the term “profile” is used throughout this disclosure to mean board or strip having ribs or tabs, and is made of metallic and/or other rigid/semi-rigid material.” The term “metallic” is a generic term for metals and/or metal alloys and does not provide any correlation to a material thickness.
Regarding claim 10 (line 10), the phrase “a depth-limiting mechanism mechanically coupled to the cutter and configured to restrict penetration of the cutting element to a depth less than a thickness of material forming the longitudinal profile” was not described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey to one skill in the art that one had possession of the invention at the time of filing and is new matter. The specification does not provide any details to a depth-limiting mechanism mechanically coupled to the cutting…to restrict penetration of the cutting element to a depth less than a thickness of material forming the longitudinal profile. At best the stopper (72) as set forth in the disclosure limits the depth of the cut. Para [0042] discloses how to set a deep or shallow cut, but there are no details to the depth-limiting mechanism being the stopper and/or restricting penetration of the cutting element to a depth less than a thickness of material forming the longitudinal profile.
Regarding claim 10 (lines 13-15), the phrase “wherein the cutter assembly is configured to form deformation-inducing cuts defining hinge regions that permit bending of the longitudinal profile while maintaining integral continuity of the profile” was not described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey to one skill in the art that one had possession of the invention at the time of filing and is new matter. The disclosure has not set forth any details to the cutting assembly forming deformation-inducing cuts. What permits a cut to be a deformation-inducing cut? What type of deformation is occurring during the cut?
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “each hinge region corresponds to a localized reduction in bending stiffness of the profile” was not described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey to one skill in the art that one had possession of the invention at the time of filing and is new matter. There are no details in the disclosure to a hinge region. Para [0032] discloses a “folding line” and “V” cuts can provide easy folding of the profile into approximately 300 degree-angle; however, there are no further details to a hinge region. The disclosure has further not provided details to the terms “hinge region” and “V” cuts and/or “cuts” being interchangeable terms.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “the deformation-inducing cuts are configured to permit elastic-plastic bending without fracture to the profile” was not described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey to one skill in the art that one had possession of the invention at the time of filing and is new matter. What permits the cuts to be deformation-inducing? How do cuts permit elastic-plastic bending without fracture? Does the material have any significance to fracturing the profile during bending?
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “the depth-limiting mechanism prevents penetration beyond a value strictly less than one-half of a profile thickness, and the deformation-inducing cuts produce bending without material separation” was not described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey to one skill in the art that one had possession of the invention at the time of filing and is new matter. The specification has not set forth any details to the depth-limiting mechanism; therefore, there are no details as to how the depth-limiting mechanism to prevents penetration. Para [0033] set forth scratch lines 118 have a depth that is approximately one-third of the thickness in the profile. While there is no mention of limiting the depth in Para [0033], there is a reference to a thickness in the profile. Para [0042] provides details that a stopper is movable between a deep and shallow position with respect to the profile. There are no details in Para [0042] to the depth-limiting mechanism preventing penetration beyond a value strictly less than one-half of a profile thickness. There are further no details in the disclosure to deformation-inducing cuts produce bending without material separation. How is a cut deformation-inducing? Further, how does a deformation-induced cut produce bending? Doesn’t bending require an external force? How does a cut produce bending without material separation?
Regarding claim 16, wherein the cutter assembly is configured solely for forming partial-depth cuts and is mechanically incapable of performing through-cuts that divide the profile into multiple pieces” was not described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey to one skill in the art that one had possession of the invention at the time of filing and is new matter. The disclosure provides details to the cutting assembly, but does not set forth any details to the assembly being configured to solely form partial depth cuts and being mechanically incapable of performing through cuts that divide the profile into multiple pieces. As shown in at least Figure 4B, the “V” cuts are through cuts in a vertical direction which divide the profile into multiple pieces. For instance each “V” is a piece. It is further unclear what permits the cutter assembly to be incapable of performing through cuts and only partial-depth cuts.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “wherein the cutter assembly lacks opposing cutting members arranged for cooperative severing of material” was not described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey to one skill in the art that one had possession of the invention at the time of filing and is new matter. As best seen in at least Figure 6, the cutter has a contoured shape. There are a plurality of diametrically opposed cutting members for severing material. How does the cutter assembly lack opposing cutting members?
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 2-17 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. Regarding claim 2 (lines 14-17), the phrase “a cutter to form the plurality of fold-inducing cuts at the determined positions on the first surface of the profile in a transverse direction to the longitudinal axis while remaining surface-tracking along the first surface of the profile” is indefinite. It is unclear what structure is any is imparted by the phrase “while remaining surface-tracking along the first surface.” What is the scope of the phrase “surface-tracking?”
Regarding claim 2 (lines 35-37), the phrase “wherein the first cut and the at least one additional cut collectively define a fold zone producing a predetermined bend angle without material separation of the profile” is indefinite. It is unclear how a first cut and an additional cut defining a zone can produce a bend angle without material separation. In other words, what structure permits the cuts to produce a bend angle? Isn’t an external force required to produce bending?
Regarding claim 10 (lines 13-15), the phrase “the cutter assembly is configured to form deformation-inducing cuts” is indefinite. It is unclear what structure if any the term “deformation-inducing” imparts to the cuts formed by the cutter assembly.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “the deformation-inducing cuts are configured to permit elastic-plastic bending without fracture to the profile” is indefinite. It is unclear what structure, if any, is imparted by the term deformation-inducing. It is further unclear how a cut permits elastic-plastic bending. Isn’t an external force required to produce bending?
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “the deformation-inducing cuts produce bending without material separation” is indefinite. As set forth above, it is further unclear how a cut permits bending. Isn’t an external force required to produce bending?
In re claim 16, the phrase “the cutter assembly is configured solely for forming partial-depth cuts and is mechanically incapable of performing through-cuts that divide the profile into multiple pieces. What structure prevents the cutter assembly to be mechanically incapable of performing through-cuts?
Claim 10 is 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 limitation “a depth-limiting mechanism mechanically coupled to the cutting assembly” and “a transverse translation mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
A prior art rejection has not been applied at this time, since the Election by Original presentation has withdrawn all the pending claims. The indefiniteness has further necessitated a lack of prior art rejection. The lack of applied art is not an omission of allowability. Amendments to the claims overcome the Election by original presentations and indefiniteness may prompt a prior art rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724