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 11/7/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 4-19 remain pending in the
application. Claims 2-3 are cancelled.
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:
“tool element” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “tool”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “tool” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the element)
“drive unit” as recited in at least claim 4 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “drive”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “drive” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit)
“cutting member” as recited in at least claim 9 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “cutting”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “cutting” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the member)
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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 6-12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dompierre (US 20010042451) in view of Oetlinger (US 20070170221).
Regarding claim 1, Dompierre discloses a sheet material processing tool, comprising:
a carrier frame (transverse beams 3, 4 and longitudinal beams 1, 2; see fig. 1) including:
a front frame member (rail 5; see fig. 1) extending substantially perpendicular to a processing direction for a sheet material to be processed (transverse beam 4 is perpendicular to the processing direction, which is presumed to be in the “longitudinal” direction; see paragraph [0014]),
a rear frame member (transverse beam 3; see fig. 1) extending substantially parallel to the front frame member and substantially perpendicular to the processing direction (transverse beam 3 is parallel to transverse beam 4 and is likewise perpendicular to the processing direction; see fig. 1),
a first lateral frame member (longitudinal beam 1; see fig. 1) connecting corresponding first ends of the front frame member and the rear frame member (longitudinal beam 1 connects first ends of transverse beams 3 and 4; see fig. 1), and
a second lateral frame member (longitudinal beam 2; see fig. 1) connecting corresponding second ends of the front frame member and the rear frame member (longitudinal beam 2 connects second ends of transverse beams 3 and 4; see fig. 1),
wherein the second ends and the first ends are arranged opposite each other (the first and second ends are opposite one another such that the frame forms a rectangular shape; see fig. 1),
a first multi-purpose interface for selectively connecting a first tool element for processing the sheet material to the carrier frame (rail 5 comprises lower groove 6 and upper groove 7, which together are capable of holding a tool; see paragraph [0028]),
a rear wall extending substantially parallel to the rear frame member (movable back rail 11 is formed parallel to transverse beam 3; see fig. 1), and
wherein the rear wall is movably supported within the carrier frame such that a distance between the rear wall and the rear frame member is adjustable (manual control 14 actuates rod 18 via toothed wheels, which allows movable back rail 11 to move longitudinally; see paragraph [0030]).
Dompierre does not explicitly disclose a first side wall extending substantially parallel to the first lateral frame member, and a second side wall extending substantially parallel to the second lateral frame member, wherein the front frame member, the rear wall, the first side wall, and the second side wall delimit a duct through which the sheet material or portions of the sheet material may pass, and wherein the first side wall and the second side wall are movably supported within the carrier frame such that a distance between the first side wall and the first lateral frame member is adjustable and a distance between the second side wall and the second lateral frame member is adjustable.
Oetlinger discloses a first side wall extending substantially parallel to the first lateral frame member (as modified, cross rail 40 of lower blanking frame 16 is parallel to the first lateral frame member; see fig. 2), and a second side wall extending substantially parallel to the second lateral frame member (as modified, cross rail 42 of lower blanking frame 16 is parallel to the second lateral frame member; see fig. 2), wherein the front frame member, the rear wall, the first side wall, and the second side wall delimit a duct through which the sheet material or portions of the sheet material may pass (the front frame member, along with cross rails 40 and 42, create a gap through which sheet material may pass in a processing direction; see fig. 2), and wherein the first side wall and the second side wall are movably supported within the carrier frame such that a distance between the first side wall and the first lateral frame member is adjustable and a distance between the second side wall and the second lateral frame member is adjustable (cross rails 40 and 42 can be adjusted in running direction 20 if couplers 174 and 175 are removed, thus the distance between cross rail 40 and the first lateral frame member as well as cross rail 42 and the second lateral frame member is adjustable. Further, grooves within receiver rails 24 and 26 allow for accurate positioning of lower blanking frame 16 in both running direction 20 and cross direction 22; see paragraphs [0076-0079] and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dompierre in view of Oetlinger to include adjustable side walls since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves routine skill in the art (see In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954)). Oetlinger further discloses that coupler 174 couples running rail 36 of lower blanking frame 16 to receiver rail 24 and coupler 175 couples running rail 38 of lower blanking frame 16 to receiver rail 26 (see paragraph [0078] and figs 1-2). Configuring the connection elements in this way allows a user to selectively adjust lower blanking frame 16 to a desired position in both running direction 20 and cross direction 22 (see paragraph [0076]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that making the side walls adjustable allows for a wider variety of products to be manufactured since an adjustable frame would be better suited for universal use.
Regarding claim 4, Dompierre as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Dompierre as modified further discloses wherein at least one of the rear wall, the first side wall, and the second side wall is coupled to a respective drive unit (movable back rail 11 is indirectly coupled to manual control 14; see fig. 1) such that the at least one of the rear wall, the first side wall, and the second side wall is adjustable within the carrier frame (manual control 14 actuates rod 18 via toothed wheels, which allows movable back rail 11 to move longitudinally; see paragraph [0030]).
Dompierre as modified does not explicitly disclose that the walls are adjustable within the carrier frame in a motorized manner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Dompierre to make the walls adjustable in a motorized manner since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192). As presently interpreted, manual control 14 falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of a drive unit since it is capable of translating force to accomplish movement of parts. Nonetheless, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that replacing manual control 14 with a motor would improve the efficiency of the process by automatically adjusting the walls without the need for input from an operator.
Regarding claim 6, Dompierre as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Dompierre as modified further discloses a second multi-purpose interface (movable back rail 11 comprises an upper and lower groove, which together hold a tool; see paragraphs [0027-0029]) for selectively connecting a second tool element for processing the sheet material to the carrier frame (the grooves of movable back rail 11 are able to support a universal stripping tool; see paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 7, Dompierre as modified discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
Dompierre as modified further discloses wherein the second multi-purpose interface is arranged on the rear wall (the grooves are located on movable back rail 11; see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Dompierre as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Dompierre as modified further discloses wherein the first multi-purpose interface is provided on the front frame member (lower groove 6 and upper groove 7 are located on rail 5; see paragraph [0028] and fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Dompierre as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Dompierre as modified further discloses wherein the first tool element is a cutting member for cutting a sheet to be processed (a universal stripping tool can be held within lower groove 6 and upper groove 7; see paragraph [0028]), and wherein the first tool element is connected to the carrier frame via the first multi-purpose interface (the stripping tool is connected to rail 5 by lower groove 6 and upper groove 7; see paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 10, Dompierre as modified discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
Dompierre as modified further discloses wherein the second tool element is a sheet support member for supporting and/or guiding a sheet to be processed (a stripping board, such as that held by the grooves in movable back rail 11, is capable of supporting a sheet during processing; see paragraph [0029]), and wherein the second tool element is connected to the carrier frame via the second multi-purpose interface (the stripping tool is indirectly connected to the frame via the grooves in movable back rail 11; see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Dompierre as modified discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
Dompierre as modified further discloses wherein the first tool element and the second tool element are a blanking assembly (the stripping tools are formed so as to carry out a blanking process; see paragraphs [0017-0020]), wherein the blanking assembly is connected to the carrier frame via the first multi-purpose interface and the second multi-purpose interface (the stripping tools are connected to the frame via the grooves in rail 5 and movable back rail 11; see paragraphs [0028-0029] and fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Dompierre as modified discloses the limitations of claim 11 as described in the rejection above.
Dompierre as modified further discloses wherein the blanking assembly comprises at least one separation bar (support beam 23; see fig. 1) separating a processing plane of the blanking assembly in at least two sections, each corresponding to a blank to be removed from a sheet to be processed (support beam 23 divides the working area into at least two sections and maintains stability of the stripping tool; see paragraphs [0033-0034] and fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Dompierre as modified discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
Dompierre as modified further discloses wherein the second multi-purpose interface is movable (the upper and lower grooves are located on movable back rail 11, which is configured to be movable in a longitudinal direction; see paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 18, Dompierre as modified discloses the limitations of claim 11 as described in the rejection above.
Dompierre as modified further discloses wherein the first multi-purpose interface includes a front support surface (between lower groove 6 and upper groove 7, a front surface is formed; see annotated portion of fig. 1 below) on which a front portion of the blanking assembly is supported in a vertical direction (when the stripping tools are supported within the grooves as described above, the front surface abuts the stripping tool; see paragraph [0028] and fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
422
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Dompierre as modified discloses the limitations of claim 11 as described in the rejection above.
Oetlinger further discloses wherein the second multi-purpose interface includes an abutment surface (surface 114 of receiver rail 24; see paragraph [0065] and figs. 17-18) oriented substantially parallel to the processing direction (surface 114 is parallel to running direction 20; see figs. 1 and 17-18), wherein the abutment surface includes a centering protrusion (surface 114 includes protrusion 120, which is received in groove 60 of running rail 36; see paragraph [0066] and fig. 17) configured to center the blanking assembly along a direction transverse to the processing direction (protrusion 120 is configured to align running rail 36 with respect to receiver rail 24; see paragraph [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Dompierre in view of Oetlinger to include an abutment surface and a centering protrusion. Oetlinger discloses that protrusion 120 aligns running rail 36 with respect to receiver rail 24. In addition to aiding alignment, protrusion 120 also prevents detachment of lower blanking frame 16 from receiver tool 18 (see paragraph [0066]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that aligning and locking the assembly into place ensures accurate and reliable processing of the sheets.
Further, Examiner notes that receiver rail 24 corresponds to the rear wall/rear frame of Dompierre as modified, i.e., protrusion 120 is located on the second multi-purpose interface rather than the first multi-purpose interface. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Dompierre to move the protrusion such that it is located on the first multi-purpose interface since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167). In the instant case, it does not appear that moving the protrusion to the first multi-purpose interface would change the overall structure or function of the device as modified. That is, the protrusion would still perform the same alignment and securing operations if it were moved to the first multi-purpose interface. Therefore, such a modification would be obvious.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dompierre (US 20010042451) in view of Oetlinger (US 20070170221), and further in view of Heiskell (US 5409368).
Regarding claim 5, Dompierre as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Dompierre as modified does not explicitly disclose a flexible cover attached to the rear wall and/or the rear frame member such that a spacing between the rear wall and the rear frame member is covered.
Heiskell discloses a flexible cover attached to the rear wall and/or the rear frame member (flexible connector plates 37a and 37b are attached to raised portion 53 of frame 45b; see figs. 2 and 8A) such that a spacing between the rear wall and the rear frame member is covered (a gap is formed between raised portions 53 and frame 31, where raised portion 53 is interpreted as the rear wall and frame 31 is the rear frame member; see col. 9, lines 22-34 and fig. 8A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Dompierre in view of Heiskell to include a flexible cover such that a spacing between the rear wall and rear frame is covered. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “cover” as “something that is placed over or about another thing”. As shown in figs. 2 and 8A, the flexible connector plates are placed over the rear wall (raised portions 53) of the grid, and there is a space between the rear wall and rear frame member (frame 31). Further, there is no limitation regarding the amount of space between the rear wall and rear frame member that must be covered. In regards to the flexibility of the cover material, it appears as though there are no limitations placed on the term “flexible”, and so it is interpreted to encompass any material which has some degree of flexibility. Therefore, as presently interpreted, the flexible connector plates of Heiskell meet the limitations as currently recited. Lastly, Heiskell discloses the benefit of including a flexible cover being that the flexible connector plates are able to suspend the grid a small distance above the frame, which reduces friction when the grid is moved by the moving means (see col. 9, lines 22-34).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dompierre (US 20010042451) in view of Oetlinger (US 20070170221), and further in view of Paubel (US 20190152181).
Regarding claim 13, Dompierre as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Dompierre as modified does not explicitly disclose a sheet material processing station comprising: a support structure connected to the sheet material processing tool according to claim 1.
Paubel discloses a sheet material processing station comprising: a support structure (holder 5; see paragraph [0033] and fig. 1) connected to the sheet material processing tool (as modified, holder 5 supports the sheet material processing tool) according to claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Dompierre to include a support structure to hold the sheet material processing tool. Paubel discloses holder 5, which is configured to support upper changeable tool 2 in both extended and operational positions (see paragraph [0033]). Further, upper changeable tool 2 can be swapped out depending on the product being processed (see paragraphs [0036-0038]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that orienting holder 5 in this way allows an operator to easily access upper changeable tool 2 so that it may be efficiently replaced and accurately aligned (see paragraphs [0024, 0037]).
Regarding claim 14, Dompierre as modified discloses the limitations of claim 13 as described in the rejection above.
Paubel further discloses wherein the sheet material processing tool is supported in the support structure via at least one linear bearing means (holder 5 is a laterally extensible carriage or a sliding frame; see paragraph [0033] and fig. 1) such that the sheet material processing tool may selectively be arranged in: an operational position, in which the sheet material processing tool is configured for at least contributing to the processing of sheet material (during operation, holder 5 inserts upper changeable tool 2 into the device; see paragraph [0037]), or in an extended position, in which the sheet material processing tool sticks out from the support structure (holder 5 is configured to be in an extended position so that upper changeable tool 2 can be easily introduced to the device; see paragraphs [0033, 0037] and fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Dompierre as modified discloses the limitations of claim 13 as described in the rejection above.
Paubel further discloses a sheet material processing machine (die-cutting press 1; see fig. 1), comprising: the sheet material processing station according to claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above).
Regarding claim 16, Dompierre as modified discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
Dompierre as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the sheet material processing tool is reconfigured to perform a different task or job by only exchanging the first tool element or the second tool element.
Paubel discloses wherein the sheet material processing tool is reconfigured to perform a different task or job by only exchanging the first tool element or the second tool element (different changeable tools 2, 10, 18 can be inserted into holder 5 to process sheets of different formats or with different blanks; see paragraphs [0036-0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Dompierre in view of Paubel to make the sheet material processing tool configured to perform a different task by exchanging tool elements. Paubel discloses that it is common for a device to process several different types of sheets in a day, hence the need for changeable tools. When configuring the sheet material processing tool in the manner disclosed by Paubel, faster changeover is achieved when replacing tools. As a result, production loss is minimized (see paragraph [0006]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 4-19 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20180339483 to Oiwa, drawn to a sheet processor and sheet processing apparatus; US 5784939 to Rebeaud, drawn to a device for centering and locking a tool-supporting frame in a die-cutting machine; US 6997364 to Oetlinger, drawn to a locator bracket for the lower frame assembly of a blanking tool; and US 3786731 to Bobst, drawn to a press for cutting sheet material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM 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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724