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 .
The amendment filed on March 26, 2026 has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, “and, when” (line 12) should be – wherein --; after “change,” (line 12), should insert – and --;
Claim 7, “and, when” (line 12) should be – wherein --; after “change,” (line 13), should insert – and --;
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 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.
Claim 1, the limitation of an acquiring step and generating step are performed by the same processor is not described in the original disclosure. Instead, the steps are performed by an information acquisition unit (11) and an estimation model generation unit (12) (Fig. 1A).
Claim 7, the limitation of an acquiring step and generating step are performed by the same processor is not described in the original disclosure. Instead, the steps are performed by an information acquisition unit (21) and an estimation model generation unit (22) (Fig. 1B).
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.
Claim 7 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 7, the difference between the tool lifetime estimation device (claim 7, line 1) and the estimation model (claim 1, line 2) is unclear since they both predict/estimate a lifetime of a punch. They seem to be the same element. The difference between estimating a lifetime of a punch (claim 7, lines 2-3) and predicting a lifetime of a punch (claim 1, lines 2-3) is unclear. They seem to be the same function.
Prior Art Note
Claims 1-7 do not have prior art rejections.
The combination as claimed wherein an estimation model generation device configured to generate an estimation model for predicting a lifetime of a punch based on a load curve indicating a temporal change or a positional change of a load applied to the punch comprising generate, based on the load curve and a punch lifetime, the estimation model for predicting the lifetime of the punch (claim 1) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 26, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the claim interpretations under 35 USC 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim interpretations under 35 USC 112(f) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 101 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 102/103 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Saitoh et al. (US 2023/0394195) claims an estimation model generation device configured to generate an estimation model for estimating a lifetime of a tool based on a load curve indicating temporal change or positional change of the load applied to the tool (claim 1). However, Saitoh et al. does not claim the estimation model generation device configured to generate an estimation model for estimating a lifetime of a punch.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 May 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights