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 .
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 “machine tool (Claim 1, line 2),” “material strip (Claim 1, line 3),” “feed rollers (Claim 1, line 3),” “pilot pin (Claim 1, line 10),” “servomotor (Claim 1, line 16),” “punch press (Claim 1, line 25),” “press ram (Claim 1, line 27),” “angle of twist (Claim 10),” “feed apparatus (Claim 12),” “automatic punching machine (Claim 23, lines 1-2) 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, 12, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1 (line 25), the phrase should recite “a motion profile.”
Regarding claim 10 (lines 3-4), the phrase recites “if a certain maximum permissible angle of twist is exceeded;” however, the phrase should provide details to whether the angle of twist is directed to the feed rollers or the material strip to more appropriately reflect the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12 (lines 7-8), should recite “wherein in the feed pause
Regarding claim 22, the phrase should recite “wherein .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-4, 9-14, 16, and 19-26 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 1 (lines 19-24), the phrase “wherein the actual movement and standstill profile of the servomotor or the feed rollers is monitored” is indefinite. It is unclear what the scope of the phrase “actual movement and standstill profile” is within the context of the claimed subject matter. Is Applicant referring to the two different time periods when the servomotor is moving verses when the servo motor is stopped? Is Applicant further referring to two different time periods of the feed rollers, in which the feed rollers are moving verses when the feed rollers are stopped? What are the boundaries of the term “profile?” Is this merely a program stored on a computer? How is the profile monitored? Per Merriam Webster Dictionary, the term profile is defined as “a set of data often in a graphic form portraying the significant features of somethings”; “a distinctive combination of characteristics.” It is further unclear what (structure) or how the servomotor and feed rollers are monitored. Since the servomotor controls the feed rollers, aren’t both the servomotor and feed rollers moving or at a standstill?
Regarding claim 1 (lines 18-23) and claim 24, the phrase “the target movement and standstill profile of a subsequent feed interval is shifted in such a way that a target position of the servomotor or the feed rollers at a beginning of a shifted target movement and standstill profile corresponds to the actual position of the servomotor or of the feed rollers after positioning of the material strip with the pilot pin or pins” is indefinite. What defines “a target movement and standstill profile of a subsequent feed interval?” How is this determined (or measured)? How is a profile of a feed interval shifted? What is the profile? Per Merriam Webster Dictionary, the term profile is defined as “a set of data often in a graphic form portraying the significant features of somethings”; “a distinctive combination of characteristics. How is the feed interval of the profile shifted such that the position of the servomotor or feed rollers changes? What is the target position or the servomotor and the feed rollers? How is this position determined? What is the scope of the phrase “at the beginning of this shifted movement?” What defines the “beginning of the shift?” How does the beginning of the shifted target movement and standstill profile correspond to an actual position of the servomotor or of the feed rollers after positioning the material strip with the pilot pins? It is unclear what the profile is and how it corresponds to a position of the servomotor or the feed rollers? What measures the position of the servo motor or the feed rollers? If the feed rollers are driven by the servomotor how are the target positions of the servomotor or feed rollers different? Wouldn’t driving the servomotor also drive and position the feed rollers?
Regarding claim 1 (lines 25-27), the phrase “wherein the target motion and standstill profile of the servomotor or the feed rollers is synchronized with the motion profile of the press ram” is indefinite. What is the profile? Per Merriam Webster Dictionary, the term profile is defined as “a set of data often in a graphic form portraying the significant features of somethings”; “a distinctive combination of characteristics. What defines “a target motion and standstill profile of the servomotor or the feed rollers?” Is this the same profile or a different profile than the actual movement and standstill profile of the servomotor as recited in line 19? How is the target motion and standstill profile of the servomotor or the feed rollers synchronized with the motion profile of the press ram? In other words, how or what permits the two profiles to be in synchronization? Is the press ram driven by the servomotor to permit the target motion and standstill profile of the servomotor or feed rollers to synchronize with the motion profile of the press ram? What is the motion profile of the ram?
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “the temporary reduction or cancellation of the holding torque of the feed rollers is reset” is indefinite. What is the scope of “reset” in this context? If the holding torque is temporarily reduced or canceled, what is it reset to? Claim 1, from which Claim 3 depends states the holding torque is temporarily reduced or canceled, so it is unclear during removal of the pins how the torque is reset or what it is reset to.
Regarding claim 12 (lines 7-10), the phrase “wherein the feed apparatus is designed in such a way that in the feed pauses, when the material strip is stationary and claimed between the feed rollers, the holding torque of the feed rollers can be temporarily reduced or cancelled, so that the material strip can be displaced by forces acting on the material strip clamped between the rollers” is indefinite. The phrase the feed apparatus is designed is intended use and does not impart any structure to the feed apparatus (which is not ambiguous); however, the subject matter that raises ambiguity is the combination of the feed apparatus being designed that in the pauses, when the material strip is stationary and claimed…the strip is displaced by forces acting on the material strip with the feed rollers clamping the material by rotating the clamped material. How does any movement occur if the material is stationary and clamped during the feed pause (lines 5 and 6)? How are forces acting on the material strip to displace the strip, if the material strip is clamped between rollers? A mere design does not permit such function and in an effort to recite additional structure, how is the material displaced while clamped between rollers?
Regarding claim 12 (lines 14-15), the phrase “wherein the machine tool comprises a control system with which the feed rollers can be controlled per feed interval according to a predetermined target movement and standstill profile” is indefinite. If line 5 sets forth the feed rollers are driven by the servomotor, how does the control system control the feed rollers? Wouldn’t the control system control servomotor and the feed rollers?
Regarding claim 12 (lines 20-26), the phrase “wherein the control system is designed in such a way that an actual movement and standstill profile of the servomotor or of the feed rollers can be monitored and the target movement and standstill profile of a subsequent feed interval can be shifted in such a way that the target position of the servomotor or of the feed rollers at a start of the shifted target movement and standstill profile is the actual position of the servomotor or of the feed rollers after positioning of the material strip with the pilot pin or pins” is indefinite. See rejection of claim 1, lines 18-26 for specific details to the 112, rejection (the same 112s that are applicable for claim 1 are applicable for claim 12).
Regarding claim 21, the phrase “when a certain maximum permissible angle of rotation is exceeded, the press can be stopped automatically” is indefinite. How is the press stopped? Is it manually stopped? Is the press stopped via a brake?
Regarding claims 23-25, the preamble is directed to a method, but claim 23 does not positively recite a method step, which is indefinite.
Regarding claim 25, the phrase “the feeding rolls are monitored for any rotational movement and, if a certain maximum permissible angle of twist is exceeded, the punch press is automatically stopped with an indication of the detected angle of twist via a press control system” is indefinite. The term “if” is ambiguous. If the max angle of twist occurs the press is stopped; however, what happens “if” the max angle of twist is not exceeded? What structure monitors the rotational movement? What is the angle of twist with respect to, the feeding rolls? How or what structure measure the angle of twist? How is the press stopped with an indication of the detected angle of twist? What is an indication of the detected angle of twist? What is indicated? How does a control system permit the punch press to stop?
Regarding claim 26, the phrase “wherein the machine tool is equipped in such a way that after the pilot pin or pins have been moved out of the pilot openings of the material strip and while the reduction of the holding torque of the feed rollers is cancelled, the feed rollers can be monitored for any rotational movement and, if a certain maximum permissible angle of rotation is exceeded, the press can be stopped automatically with visualization of the detected angle of rotation via the press control system” is indefinite. What permits the feed rollers to be monitored? The claim has not set forth any structure or established a structural relationship permitting monitoring the rotational movement of the feed rollers. The phrase “if a certain maximum permissible angle of rotation is exceeded the press can be stopped automatically with visualization of the detected angle of rotation via the press control system” is indefinite. The term “if” is ambiguous. If the max angle of rotation occurs the press is stopped; however, what happens “if” the max angle of rotation is not exceeded? What measures the max permissible angle of rotation and what compares this angle? The claim has not established a structural relationship to accomplish this function (and this is an apparatus claim). What is the scope of “the press can be stopped automatically with visualization of the detected angle of rotation via the press control system?” What structure permits visualization of the detected angle? Is the performed manually via an operator? Or via a sensor?
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 26 recites the broad recitation “if a certain maximum permissible angle of rotation is exceeded” and the claim also recites “the feed rollers can be monitored for any rotational movement and the press can be stopped automatically with visualization of the detected angle of rotation via the i the press control system” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. In other words, does the press control system determine if a maximum angle of rotation is exceeded or only stop the press? What is an indication of the detected angle of twist?
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 23 recites “the machine tool is an automatic punching machine” which does not further limit claim 1, which recites “the machine tool is a punch press.” An automatic punching machine appears to have a broader scope than the term “punch press.” Applicant may claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments filed Decmeber 16, 2025; however, the amendments do not overcome the indefinites of the claims. Based on the indefiniteness of the claims, the scope (of the claims) is indeterminate and a prior art rejection has not been made. The lack of prior art is not an admission of allowability and amendments may necessitate a prior art rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the features recited in the claims. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The disclosure did not recite, these features are known in the art and will not be disclosed nor did the prior art search lead to a plethora of references depicting the claimed invention. The drawing objections have been maintained. The applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented. 35 USC 113, Drawings.
The claim objections in the Office Action mailed July 16, 2025 have been obviated by the amendments filed December 16, 2025.
Applicant's arguments filed December 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the argument to the indefiniteness of the phrase “actual movement and standstill profile,” the Examiner is not permitted to import arguments into the disclosure. The Examiner acknowledges the clear explanation of the phrase; however, there are no details to a rotary encoder measuring a rotational angle of the feed roller in the disclosure. The crank angle X of the punch press being determined by the rotational angle of the crank shaft of the press by means of a rotary encoder is not set forth in the disclosure nor in the claimed subject matter. Similarly, the Examiner acknowledges the clear explanations of the phrase “target movement and standstill profile” and to the deviation of the “actual movement and standstill profile” from the target movement and standstill profile with respect to the displacement of the material strip. None of these details are recited in the disclosure or in the claimed subject matter. The incorporation of such substantial details at this juncture would introduce new matter. The claims are replete with indefinite limitations that do not establish a nexus between subject matter to clearly ascertain the scope of the invention. For example, claim 1 provides no details as to how or what inserts and removes the pilot pins. Is this done via an operator, a robot, or another device in the machining zone? Do the pins provide a “pulling” action to displace the material? If so what permits this to occur? There is a vast amount of ambiguity raised by the claim language which is not remedied by the disclosure. After further consideration, the pending rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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
Prosecution Insights