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 .
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:
First lower device (e.g. claim 1)
Second lower device (e.g. claim 1)
First upper device (e.g. claim 1)
Second upper device (e.g. claim 1)
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 (e.g. conventional mechanical or hydraulic devices - page 8, lines 3-4).
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
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 1-3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (WO2020230731, with reference to U.S. PGPub 20220203429 as an English equivalent) in view of Cavicchia et al. (WO2017139824, with reference to translation)
Claim 1: Sato et al. discloses a device (56) for loading bending tools (12, 14) into a press (16), comprising: a first lower guide (one of 82 - Fig. 2; paragraph 53) oriented according to a first direction (L-R); a second lower guide (another one of 82, not shown but understood as being arranged in the front-rear direction relative to the first as cited above) arranged to be parallel to said first lower guide (e.g. along the L-R direction, Id.) and spaced vertically therefrom (in that 92 “moves the selected lower stocker 82 to the lower exchange position”, paragraphs 53, 55); a first lower device (92) for translating said second lower guide in a second direction (U-D, paragraph 55), which is orthogonal to said first direction (vertically as compared to horizontally) so as to cause the first lower guide and the second lower guide to be horizontally parallel (noting that “horizontally parallel” does not necessarily mean at a common vertical height, that they are simply oriented horizontally and parallel to one another; however, they may also be relatively positioned at a common height as implied above); a second lower device (88) for translating said first lower guide and said second lower guide, arranged to be horizontally parallel (as discussed above), in a third direction (FF-FR - paragraph 55), which is orthogonal to said first direction and to said second direction; a first upper guide (one of 66 - Fig. 2; paragraph 50) oriented according to said first direction (L-R); a second upper guide (another one of 66, not shown but understood as being arranged in the front-rear direction relative to the first as cited above) arranged is to be parallel to said first upper guide (e.g. along the L-R direction, Id.) and spaced vertically therefrom (in that 78 “moves the selected upper stocker 66 to the upper exchange position”, paragraphs 50, 52); a first upper device (78) for translating said second upper guide in said second direction (U-D, paragraph 52), which is orthogonal to said first direction, so as to cause the first upper guide and the second upper guide to be horizontally parallel (similar to with the lower guides discussed above); a second upper device (74) for translating said first upper guide and said second upper guide, arranged to be horizontally parallel (as discussed above), in said third direction (FF-FR - paragraph 52), which is orthogonal to said first direction, wherein said lower guides and said upper guides are configured so that one or more tools or dies (12, 14) can be slidably assembled thereon (e.g. paragraphs 90, 92-93, 97; Figs. 6B-6C). It is noted that the first and second upper and lower devices are disclosed as being known (paragraphs 52 and 55) and are implicitly mechanical, and so are considered to read on the interpretation under 112(f).
Sato et al. further discloses said second lower device (88) causes said first and said second lower guide (82) to translate horizontally (as cited above), and said second upper device causes said first and said second upper guide to translate horizontally, but not necessarily respectively integrally with each other. However, Cavicchia et al. discloses a similar device wherein a set of guides 16 may be translated integrally with each other along a direction (along rails 35 in Fig. 3; paragraph 48; noting they may still be translated vertically independently). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the Sato device to have translated the respective guides integrally, for example in order to have saved movement steps by allowing moving both guides together on a common platform.
Claim 2: Referring to Sato, said first lower device (92) is configured to selectively translate said second lower guide (82) in said second direction (vertically) between a lower position with respect to said first lower guide and a position, in which said lower guide is coplanar and side by side with respect to said first lower guide (it “moves the selected lower stocker 82 to the lower exchange position”, paragraphs 53, 55).
Claim 3: Said first upper device (78) is configured to selectively translate said second upper guide (66) in said second direction (vertically) between a higher position with respect to said first upper guide and a position in which said second upper guide is coplanar and side by side with respect to said first upper guide (it “moves the selected upper stocker 66 to the upper exchange position”, paragraphs 50, 52).
Claim 5: Said second lower device (88) is configured to selectively arrange said first lower guide or said second lower guide (82) in an aligned and coplanar position with respect to a lower transfer guide (46), the lower transfer guide being intended to be positioned to be aligned and coplanar with a lower guide (40) of a press (16 - e.g. Figs. 1-2).
Claim 6: Said second upper device (74) is configured to selectively arrange said first upper guide or said second upper guide (68) in an aligned and coplanar position with respect to an upper transfer guide (44), the upper transfer guide being intended to be positioned to be aligned and coplanar with an upper guide (30) of a press (16 - e.g. Figs. 1-2).
Claim 7: Said first lower device (92) and said second lower device (88) move said lower guides independently of said first and said second upper device and vice versa (implied as cited previously, as they are separate devices).
Claim 8: Said first and said second lower device (92, 88) move said lower guides so that they are synchronized with said first and second upper device and vice versa. It is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the first and said second lower device are presumed capable of being “synchronized” with said first and second upper device and vice versa, i.e. simply being controlled in some manner in conjunction with each other.
Claim 9: Said lower transfer guide (46) is configured for a sliding movement of said bending tools (paragraph 46).
Claim 11: Said upper transfer guide (44) is configured for a sliding movement of said bending tools (paragraph 45).
Claim 10: Sato et al., as modified by Cavicchia, teaches a procedure for loading tools (12, 14) onto a press (16) equipped with a lower guide (40) and with an upper guide (30), the procedure comprising: providing the loading device (56) according to claim 6 (as discussed above); preloading a plurality of first tools (12, 14) by manually or automatically positioning said plurality of tools on said second lower guide (82) and/or on said second upper guide (66 - tools 12 and 14 are shown loaded on guides 66 and 82 in Figs. 2-3; loading would inherently be one of manual or automatic; the provision of a plurality of each of guides 66 and 82 implies any may be used to hold tools at a given time, see paragraphs 50 and 53); positioning said first lower guide (another of 82) to be coplanar and aligned with a lower transfer guide (46) and/or positioning said first upper guide (66) to be coplanar and aligned with an upper transfer guide (44 - an upper and/or lower guide preparing for receiving tools would have to be aligned with the respective upper and lower transfer guides in order to allow for sliding tools to the guides from the press); transferring second tools from said press (P) to said first lower guide (82) and/or to said first upper guide (66) by sliding said second tools along said lower transfer guide and/or upper transfer guide (implied at paragraphs 90, 93); moving said first lower guide with and said second lower guide (guides 82) and/or said first upper guide with said second upper guide (guides 66) so that said second lower guide and/or said second upper guide is positioned to be aligned and coplanar with the lower transfer guide or respectively said upper transfer guide (the upper and/or lower guides holding the tools would have to be aligned with the respective upper and lower transfer guides in order to allow for sliding tools to the press); and transferring said first tools from said second lower guide and/or said second upper guide to said lower guide (40) of said press (16) and/or respectively said upper guide (30) of said press by sliding said tools along said lower transfer guide and/or respectively said upper transfer guide (implied in paragraph 92).
Sato does not explicitly describe moving the guides “with a synchronized movement”. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have operated the guides with a synchronized movement since it has been held that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). Please note that in the instant application, page 8, lines 1-2, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for synchronized versus independent operation and contemplates both.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Sato discloses instead that lower stockers 82, as well as upper stockers 66, are arranged parallel to each other along a horizontal plane and, accordingly, are not "spaced vertically" as recited in claim 1”. The examiner agrees that lower stockers 82 and upper stockers 66 can be arranged parallel to each other along a horizontal plane. However, as cited in the previous rejection, the first lower device 92 and the first upper device 78 are each capable of raising/lowering a "selected" lower stocker 82 and upper stocker 66, which implies that there are at least some configurations where the stockers (guides) would be spaced vertically.
Applicant then notes that, in Sato, “the lower and respectively upper stocker moving mechanisms cause a selected lower and respectively upper stocker to move vertically so as to be in a different vertical position in relation to the remaining lower and upper stockers” and consequently argues “Sato does not teach that the lower and upper devices move the lower and upper guides to become ‘arranged to be horizontally parallel’ as recited in claim 1 but, on the contrary, teaches that the lower and upper devices move the lower and upper guides to become vertically offset”. Applicant had asserted just prior that the lower and upper stockers are respectively arranged parallel along a horizontal plane and are thus not spaced vertically. Now, Applicant asserts just the opposite, i.e. that because the selected stockers may be moved vertically relative to one another, they are not "arranged to be horizontally parallel" but are vertically offset. Applicant has thus contradicted themselves by asserting Sato is capable of both configurations while somehow meeting neither limitation. Applicant cannot have it both ways. The examiner maintains that Sato is capable of both configurations, as affirmed by Applicant above, and thus meets the claimed limitations. The examiner further notes that the limitation “horizontally parallel” does not necessarily mean the guides share a common vertical position, but could simply mean they are both horizontally oriented and parallel (e.g. having parallel longitudinal axes) to one another, which is always true of the Sato stockers.
Regarding Cavicchia, the mechanism for moving the tool carriers 16 (analogous to the claimed tool guides) is analogous to the second upper/lower device for moving said tool guides in that it is able to translate both guides integrally while still allowing for their independent vertical movement. Sato, having tool carriers (stockers) arranged horizontally in the front-rear direction, would also require a selected stocker to be aligned with the entry point of the press. Sato already provides a mechanism (88, 74) for this purpose. Cavicchia is merely cited to teach the concept of moving the stockers together or “integrally with each other” as opposed to individually, for example. It is unclear how this would render Sato unsuitable for its intended purpose.
Regarding Applicant’s last paragraph on page 8, the claims do not necessarily preclude vertical movement of the first lower guide.
Applicant makes no separate argument for claim 10, and so the examiner presumes Applicant relies on its ultimate dependency from claim 1 and the arguments addressed above.
Conclusion
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 MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights