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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/11/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the amendments in Figure 1B show a selection control 42 is next to (contacting to) the punching unit 5; there are an electromechanical steering 46, a hydraulic steering 48, a pneumatic steering 50 in the embodiment of Figure 1B (why they are not in an embodiment of Figure 1A), which are new matter since the original specification does not support it (see Application’s specification, Paras. 58-60 of the pub. US 2023/0347404, it clearly states three different embodiments “a further embodiment…an alternative embodiment…an alternative embodiment…”). 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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title.
In the amendment of abstract, 01/28/2026 is objected because of:
line 1 “methods” should read –a method--;
line 2 “A punch unit” should be –The punch unit--;
line 6 should be read --…selectin the punches--;
line 8 should read --…The method comprises—;
line 9 should read--…the punch unit--;
line 10 should read --…one or more the punches—
lines 10-11 should read --…the selection control--
the lengthy specification (the original 23 pages of 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.
The amendment filed 01/28/2026 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:
the languages “(42, shown in Fig. 1B)” in paragraph 38 is new matter since the original specification does not discuss the selection control in the embodiment of Figure 1B; the paragraph 57 has the same issue.
The features “selected punch. FIG. 1B conceptually represents a locking mechanism comprising a mechanical lock (44) and an electromechanical steering (46), a hydraulic steering (48), and a pneumatic steering (50)” is new matter since the original specification does not discuss it. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Para. 70 “exchangeable” should be –replaceable—for avoiding confusing. Also, the language “exchangeable” in the specification should be –replaceable—for avoiding confusing. 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.
Claims 1, 9 limitation “a locking mechanism…configured for locking each selected punch” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation 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.
First, "mechanism" is a generic substitute for “means”; second, the "mechanism" is modified by functional language including “selecting a punch from the at least two punches”; and third, the "mechanism" is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the recited function because "locking" describes the function, not the structure of the mechanism.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1, 9 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and or 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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites “repeating clamping, displacing, selecting, and locking, and punching at least once” is new matter since the original specification does not support it. For examples, why is the step of clamping “the profile” needed to repeat? Why is the step of displacing “the profile” needed to repeat (since the workpiece is punched a different hole)?...
Is the workpiece or profile removed and installed back for repeating “clamping, displacing, selecting, and locking, and punching” the same holes? Thus, it is new matter since the original specification does not discuss it.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, the last paragraph “the complementary hole” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers one of previously introduced holes in line 5 of claim 1 or an additional hole.
Claim 5, the language “is exchangeable” is unclear whether it refers back to the installed set or one of the installed first die shoe, the at least two punches and the corresponding installed second die shoe. Reading Applicant’s specification and the amendments of drawing, to make it more clearer, the one skill in the art suggests the language “exchangeable” should be “replaceable” for avoiding confusing.
Claim 8 “said first clamp” is unclear whether the first clamp refers the clamp in claim 1 or an additional clamp. How many clamps in this punch system?
The scope of Claim 13 “repeating the clamping, displacing… at least one” is unclear. The original specification does not support it (see the discussion above). Examiner does not know why, for examples, the clamping and the displacing profile need to repeat since the profile continuously is punched different holes. Therefore, it is unclear what scope should be given to claim 13.
All claims dependent from claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-10, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert (US 3311297) in view of Masami (JP 2002273531 and Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Robert shows a punch unit system (Figures 1-2a), comprising:
a punch unit (6) for punching holes in a profile with high- throughput comprising:
a clamp (front and rear rollers 70, 62, Figure 2) slideable in a first direction (a rotation direction);
a first die shoe (52), comprising at least two punches in a retracted position therein (shows in Figure 2. Please note that the a spherical interposer 52 causes the punch or punches in the retracted position);
a second die shoe (see Figure 2, a bottom part having a die 58) comprising holes complementary to the at least two punches (Figures 2-3);
a passage for a profile between the at least two punches of the first die shoe and the second die shoe (a space for receiving the workpiece 60);
a transmission shaft (10), configured for translating a rotational movement to a linear movement (of shafts 2)
a selection control (78) configured forin the profile positioned in the passage, and a locking mechanism (see the discussion of the actuator 78, 74, Figure 2 for locking the spherical interposer 52) configured for locking each selected punch in an extended position on the first die shoe, such that,
However, Robert fails to discuss movements of a first die shoe.
Masami shows a punching system (Figures 9-11) having a first die shoe (a tension plate 16) movement on each punching stroke.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system of Robert to have a first die shoe (tension plate), as taught by Masami, in order to hold and flatten the workpiece during punching.
Regarding claim 2, Robert shows at least two of the at least two punches are positioned in the first die shoe on a line perpendicular to the stroke direction, not the first direction.
Masami shows an arraying multiple punch (see the solution and Figures 9-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system of Robert to have an arraying multiple punches, as taught by Masami, in order to allow to expedite punching the workpiece.
Regarding claims 6-8, the modified system of Robert shows that the transmission shaft is configured to rotate at constant speed (Figure 10 of Robert), wherein the clamp is configured to displace the profile during regular intervals (Figures 3-4 of Robert), wherein the punch unit further comprises two clamps a second clamp (the front and back rollers), slideable in the first direction (the rotation direction), and wherein the first and second die shoes are positioned in between said two clamps first clamp and said second clamp according to the first direction (see Figures 3-4 of Robert).
Regarding claim 9, the modified system of Robert teaches all of the limitations as stated in claim 1 above and other depend claims.
Regarding claim 10, the modified system of Robert teaches the clamp remains at least stationary while a punch of the punch unit is in contact with the profile (this is inherent performance; there is no rotation of the rollers during punching, otherwise, the punch/die would be jammed).
Regarding claim 14, the modified system of Robert teaches the least one hole punched in the profile comprises at least two holes punched simultaneously, on a line perpendicular to the first direction (see the discussion in claim 1 above, Robert’s art is independently actuating punches, and also, see the arraying punching unit).
Regarding claim 15, the modified system of Robert teaches all of the limitations as stated above except that the profile is a U-profile for a truck or trailer chassis, and wherein punching said at least one hole in the profile by the punch unit comprises punching at least one hole in a web.
Robert shows a punching hole in the metal plate (W and Abstract).
As the applicant had not pointed out the criticality of why the punch system is punching a U-profile. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the guide portion of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, including a U-profile. Furthermore, the shape of the workpiece is merely a recognized equivalent way to have any shape, since applicant has not disclosed that having any specific construction of the U-profile solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears the U-profile would perform equally well while being constructed of any shape of the workpiece (since there are many parts of a truck or trailer chassis). A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey etal., 149 USPQ 47.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 11 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: claims 4 and 11 do not anticipate or render obvious the punch unit system with a displacing sensor as set forth in claims 4, 11-12.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 5 do not anticipate or render obvious the punch unit system with the installed set replaceable with a different set as set forth in claim 5.
Please note that there is no art for rejecting claim 13 since there is currently no support the scope of claim 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant has amended to the claims; there are many issue arisen (see the discussion above).
However, if Applicant needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM 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, 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 3/10/2026