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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed February 4th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-16 remain pending
in the application. Examiner withdraws the objections to the specification and claims as well as the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 8th, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-7, 9-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Jean-Claude Rebeaud (US 6095962 A – hereinafter Rebeaud) in view of Robert E.
Sabin (US 5172622 A – hereinafter Sabin) and Shoji Yokoyama et al. (US 20190388951 A1 - hereinafter Yokoyama).
Regarding claim 1, Rebeaud teaches a tool clamping assembly (assembly seen in Fig. 2)
for clamping a blanking tool (Fig. 1, Planar Member 20) intended to be used in a blanking station
of a sheet processing machine (Fig. 4, Control Table 100), the tool clamping assembly having a
frame (Fig. 3, Frame 30) to which the blanking tool is to be clamped, and a clamping element
(Fig. 3, Support Bar 60), the frame having an aligning mechanism (Fig. 3, Center Stop 70)
adapted for aligning the blanking tool in a first direction (Col 6, lines 59-61), the frame further
having at least one support surface (Fig. 3, inside surface of Downstream Support Bar 39)
oriented to support the blanking tool in a second direction which is perpendicular to the first
direction (Col. 6, lines 66-67 and Col. 7, lines 1-2), and an abutment surface oriented to support
the blanking tool in a third direction which is perpendicular to the first and second
directions (Fig. 3, upper surface of Downstream Support Bar 39), and the clamping element
being displaceable between an open position (position of Support Bar 60 seen in Fig. 2) and a
clamping position (position of Support Bar 60 seen in Fig. 3), the clamping element being
adapted for clamping the blanking tool against the support surface (Col. 6, lines 62-67 and Col.
7, lines 1-2), wherein the clamping element applies a clamping force on the blanking tool in the
clamping position (Col. 7, lines 4-5), wherein the clamping force has a force component along
the second direction (examiner interprets that the clamping force is a normal force between Support Bar 60 and the inner face of Downstream Support Bar 39, and therefore has a force
component in that second direction), and a final clamping step of the clamping element (Fig. 3, Support Bar 60) rotating with downward displacement to contact a side-facing portion (Fig. 1, the inside side surface of Downstream Strip 23) of a contact surface (Fig. 1, combined top surfaces of Planar Member 20) of the blanking tool (Fig. 1, Planar Member 20) and apply the force component in the second direction (examiner interprets that the clamping force is a normal force between Support Bar 60 and the inner face of Downstream Support Bar 39, and therefore has a force component in that second direction).
Rebeaud fails to specifically teach that the clamping element clamps the blanking tool
against the abutment surface, that there is a force component along the third direction, and wherein, as the clamping element is displaced from the open position to the clamping position, the clamping element is first displaced downwardly without rotation until the clamping element contacts an upwardly-facing portion of a contact surface of the blanking tool to apply the force component in the third direction.
However, Sabin teaches a clamping assembly (Fig. 4, Plate 24) for a blanking tool (Fig. 4, Template 27) where a clamping element (Fig. 4, Clip 26) is adapted for clamping the blanking
tool against an abutment surface (Fig. 4, upper surface of Pad 22; Col. 4, Lines 52-53), applying
a clamping force with a force component in a third direction (examiner interprets that if the
clamp is holding the blanking tool down on the surface, there is a force component normal to that
surface, in the third direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clamping element of Rebeaud such
that it additionally clamps the blanking tool against the abutment surface, generating a force
component along the third direction as taught by Sabin. Doing so is beneficial as the location and accuracy of the cut made by the die element may be ensured (Sabin; Col 5, lines 36-40).
Additionally, Yokoyama teaches a tool clamping assembly wherein, as the clamping element (Fig. 25, Blade 3) is displaced from the open position to the clamping position, the clamping element is first displaced downwardly (Fig. 24 and 25, downwardly being movement in the right to left direction as displayed in Fig. 25; [0147]) without rotation until the clamping element contacts an upwardly-facing portion of a contact surface (Fig. 25, Bumper 51) of the workpiece to apply the force component in the third direction ([00147] – Blade 3 is in close contact with Bumper 51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Rebeaud and Sabin to include the limitations of claim 1 as taught by Yokoyama. Doing so is beneficial as the clamping element can be pulled away from the workpiece for removal of waste (Yokoyama; [0148]).
Regarding claim 2, Rebeaud further teaches the tool clamping assembly according to claim 1, wherein the clamping element is displaceable between the open position and the clamping position by a movement along the second direction (Fig. 3, Support Bar 60 rotates by use of Handle 50, therefore switching between an open and clamping position via movement along the second direction).
Regarding claim 3, Rebeaud further teaches the tool clamping assembly according to claim 1, wherein the clamping element is connected to the frame by a carrier element (Fig. 3, Intermediate Bearings 42), wherein the carrier element is associated to the frame with a carrier element first end section (Fig. 3, the half of Intermediate Bearing 42 that is attached to Downstream Crossbeam 34) and associated to the clamping element with a carrier element second end section (Fig. 3, the half of Intermediate Bearing 42 that is attached to Control Shaft 40, which attaches to Support Bar 60 via Radial Arms 62).
Regarding claim 4, Rebeaud further teaches the tool clamping assembly according to claim 3, wherein the clamping element is rotatably connected to the carrier element (Fig. 2, Control Shaft 40, which attaches to Support Bar 60 via Radial Arms 62 and rotates; Col. 6, lines 13-15).
Regarding claim 5, Rebeaud further teaches the tool clamping assembly according to claim 4, wherein the clamping element is rotatably connected to the carrier element with a first end section (Fig. 3, half of Support Bar 60 closest to Control Shaft 40) and is adapted to rotate with a second end section (Fig. 3, half of Support Bar 60 furthest from Control Shaft 40) towards the carrier element when being displaced between the open position and the clamping position (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, it can be seen that second end section of the clamping element is closer to the carrier element when in the clamping position of Fig. 3), wherein the second end section is adapted for clamping the blanking tool against the support surface and the abutment surface of the frame (Fig. 3, the second end section of Support Bar 60 can be seen in Fig. 3 to be the portion
contacting the blanking tool).
Regarding claim 6, Rebeaud further teaches the tool clamping assembly claim 3, wherein the clamping element and the carrier element form an angle of less than 90 degrees relative to each other in the open position of the clamping element (Fig. 2, the open position is shown. The upper face of Support Bar 60 is at an angle of greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees from the upper face of Intermediate Bearing 42).
Regarding claim 7, Rebeaud further teaches the tool clamping assembly according to claim 3, wherein the tool clamping assembly further comprises a spring (Fig. 3, Cylindrical Helicoidal Springs) connected to the clamping element.
The existing combination of Rebeaud, Sabin, and Yokoyama does not teach wherein the spring is a leaf spring.
However, Yokoyama teaches a tool clamping assembly which has a leaf spring (Fig. 25,
Leaf Spring 91) connected to a clamping element (Fig. 25, Blade 3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the spring of the combination of
Rebeaud, Sabin, and Yokoyama to be a leaf spring as taught by Yokoyama as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143). Yokoyama contains a leaf spring rather than the helicoidal spring taught by Rebeaud. Both Yokoyama (Yokoyama; [0148]) and Rebeaud (Rebeaud; Col. 6 lines, 41-44) assert that the spring’s function is to bias the clamping element towards a preferred direction. Substituting the leaf spring of Yokoyama for the helicoidal spring of Rebeaud would have the predictable result of Rebeaud using a leaf spring to connect to clamping element.
Regarding claim 9, Rebeaud further teaches the tool clamping assembly according to claim 1, wherein the aligning mechanism (Fig. 3, Center Stop 70) is connected to the frame (Fig. 3, Frame 30).
Regarding claim 10, Rebeaud further teaches a blanking tool assembly (Fig. 4, Control Table 100) comprising the tool clamping assembly (assembly seen in Fig. 2) according to claim 3 and a blanking tool (Fig. 1, Planar Member 20).
Regarding claim 11, Rebeaud further teaches the blanking assembly according to claim 10, wherein the clamping element in the clamping position presses against a contact surface located in a corner of a receiving space of the blanking tool (Fig. 3, Fig. 3, inside surface of Downstream Support Bar 39; Col. 6, lines 66-67 and Col. 7, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 12, Rebeaud further teaches the blanking tool assembly according to claim 11, wherein the contact surface of the blanking tool is part of a step structure of the blanking tool (Fig. 1, the contact surface is part of Downstream Strip 23, which forms a step on Planar Member 20).
Regarding claim 14, Rebeaud further teaches the blanking tool assembly according to claim 10,wherein the aligning mechanism cooperates with an alignment protrusion (Fig. 3, Centering Post 25) of the blanking tool (Col. 6, lines 59-61).
Claims 8, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Jean- Claude Rebeaud (US 6095962 A – hereinafter Rebeaud) in view of Robert E. Sabin
(US 5172622 A – hereinafter Sabin) and Shoji Yokoyama et al. (US 20190388951 A1 - hereinafter Yokoyama) as applied to claims 1, 3, and 10 above, and further in view of Frank E. Oetlinger (US 6966873 B2 - hereinafter Oetlinger).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Rebeaud, Sabin, and Yokoyama fails to teach wherein the carrier element comprises a cover arranged at the carrier element second end section.
However, Oetlinger teaches a tool clamping assembly with a carrier element (Fig. 5, Link
47) that comprises a cover (Fig. 5, Base 15) arranged at the carrier element end section (Fig. 5,
top half of Link 47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the carrier element of the combination of
Rebeaud, Sabin, and Yokoyama to comprise a cover arranged at the end section as taught by Oetlinger. It is well known in the art that providing a cover for moving parts in a machine where scrap is generated is beneficial for the performance of the machine and avoiding damage to said moving parts.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Rebeaud, Sabin, and Yokoyama fails to teach wherein the blanking tool has a recess in which the clamping element can be incorporated when the clamping element is in the clamped position.
However, Oetlinger teaches wherein a blanking tool has a recess (Fig. 4, recess formed
between Channel Walls 8 and 9) in which a clamping element (Fig. 4, Arm 31) can be incorporated (Col. 7, lines 58-60) when the clamping element is in the clamped position (position
shown in Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blanking tool of the combination of
Rebeaud, Sabin, and Yokoyama to have a recess in which the clamping element can be incorporated in the clamped position as taught by Oetlinger. Doing so is beneficial as the clamping element can be recessed while still having adequate room to rotate (Oetlinger; Col. 6 lines 62-67 and Col. 7 lines 58-61).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Rebeaud, Sabin, and Yokoyama fails to teach the tool clamping assembly of claim 1, wherein the clamping element rotates about a first end of the clamping element, and wherein the first end of the clamping element is displaceable relative to the frame in the third direction.
However, Oetlinger teaches wherein a clamping element (Fig. 1, Link 47) rotates about a
first end (Fig. 1, end closest to Pin 57) of the clamping element, and wherein the first end of the
clamping element is displaceable relative to the frame (Fig. 1, Support Member 2) in the third
direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of the combination of
Rebeaud, Sabin, and Yokoyama to include the features of claim 16 above as taught by Oetlinger. Doing so is beneficial as this clamping element setup allows for the clamping element to be flush with the frame in a clamped position (Oetlinger; Col. 1, lines 52-63).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jean-Claude
Rebeaud (US 6095962 A – hereinafter Rebeaud) in view of Robert E. Sabin (US 5172622 A
– hereinafter Sabin) and Shoji Yokoyama et al. (US 20190388951 A1 – hereinafter Yokoyama) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gordon Sommer et al. (US 2984176 A - hereinafter Sommer).
Regarding claim 15, the existing combination of Rebeaud, Sabin, and Yokoyama fails to teach the tool clamping assembly of claim 1, wherein the clamping element is connected to the frame by a carrier element associated with the frame by a piston movable along the third direction.
However, Sommer teaches a tool clamping assembly, wherein a clamping element (Fig.
7, Head 58) is connected to a frame (Fig. 7, Bracket 15) by a carrier element (Fig. 7, Yoke 18)
associated with the frame by a piston (Fig. 5-7, Piston Rod 39) moveable along the third
direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of the combination of
Rebeaud, Sabin, and Yokoyama to include the features of claim 15 above as taught by Sommer. Doing so is beneficial as it allows for a clamping system which is self-locking in the event of a failure of the machine (Sommer; Col. 1, lines 60-66).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended claim 1, applicant asserts that Yokoyama does not teach the newly added limitation of claim 1 above regarding the clamping element moving vertically without rotation. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the Yokoyama reference. It can be seen in the rejection of claim 1 above that Yokoyama teaches this limitation of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights