DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-3 and 12 in the reply filed on 12-19-2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that groups I and III share the same technical feature. This is not found persuasive because group III claims do not share the same special technical feature in Group I claims of a notch that is formed at a position on each of sides across a position to become a vertical ridge in a deep drawing method of forming a polygonal tube. The special technical feature of polygonal deep drawing in the group I method claim is not a shared technical feature with blank claim group III.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-3 and 12 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, line 7 sets forth “a notch” and lines 9 and 10 claim that “the notch is formed at a position on each of sides” so it is not clear if a single notch is claimed or more than one notch? The specification, page 15, lines 1-3 describes “a notch 11 is formed on each side of the blank 10”, it is not clear if a single notch scope as claimed in claim 1 is described.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ueda (JP 2006-198672). Ueda discloses notches (26; Fig. 4) that are pre-formed in a blank (1a; Fig. 1b) that is subjected to polygonal deep drawing ([0024], lines 1-4) to form a polygonal part (A; Fig. 3) having a bottom surface part (12,14; Fig. 3) and vertical side portions extending from the bottom surface part, wherein Fig. 3 illustrates vertical side walls extending from the bottom surface part (12,14) to a horizontally extending flange (20). The notches (26, Fig. 3; [0032]) are cut into the sheet blank (1a) on both sides (left and right side of blank; Fig. 3) of the flange section (20) and are spaced across a vertical ridge (vertical sidewall on either side of joint line S2; Fig. 4) where corner part portions (12,14) of the drawn polygonal part are subject to cracking during drawing. Ueda discloses that the notches (26; [0031]) are formed in the flange portion (20) of the blank (1a) on both sides of the blank so that material flow is improved around the joint line (Fig. 4) and the deep drawing is performed while avoiding cracking in the vertical ridge. The notches (26) are formed in an arc shape ([0032], last line).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakagawa et al. (JP 2015-077627). Nakagawa discloses (Figs. 1 and 3) a formed article production method for producing a formed article having a polygonal shape (11; [0028]) by performing polygonal tube deep drawing on a steel sheet (blank, 1; [0002], lines 1-2) to form a panel including a bottom surface part (13) having a polygonal shape, which is a square shape having side walls (side wall depth illustrated in die 20; Fig. 3) including a straight side part (2c,2d; Fig. 1) continuous with a side of the bottom surface part and a vertical ridge comprising corners of the panel (10) that connect ends, in a right-left direction (Fig. 1), of adjacent straight side parts (square sides; 2, 2a,2c,2d), and a flange (peripheral of draw beads 5(15), Fig. 1; [0022], lines 3-5) continuous with the side walls. Nakagawa discloses that each of the square sides (2c,2d) has a flange region (4, Fig. 1) which is configured to become the flange in the blank and includes a notch (6) wherein the notch (6) is formed in a part of the square sides (2c,2d) of the flange region (4) which is a straight side part that is near to and between the vertical ridge corners at the top and bottom of the blank (1; Fig. 2).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (JP 2015-077627) in view of Iizuka et al. (JP 01-233020). Regarding claim 2, Nakagawa discloses routine experimentation with a notch width (w) and a notch length (d; Fig. 13; [0042],[0045]) wherein Nakagawa discloses a notch width of 10mm-20mm, a notch length of between 10-50mm and a notch radius of curvature (R) of a top part of the notch (8b) having a radius of curvature (8a) of 5-10mm or more ([0048]; Fig. 2) but Nakagawa does not specifically recite the claim 2 relationships between forming depth, notch width and notch radius of curvature claimed. Iizuka teaches that there are multiple notches (Z) near to corners in a blank (4; Fig. 6) that is subjected to polygonal deep drawing (Fig. 7). Iizuka teaches that a depth of a notch (Z) is 0.3 to 0.6 times a height of a flange portion (3b; page 3, paragraph 2, lines 8-9) of the deep drawn polygonal tray (3; Fig. 7). Using routine experimentation, Nakagawa’s disclosed notch length (d) of 10mm, notch width (w) of 10mm and notch radius of curvature of 5mm combined with Iizuka teaching of a notch being 0.5 times a flange depth, an experimental flange depth in Nakagawa is 10/0.5 = 20mm and according to claim 2 limitations, Nakagawa in view of Iizuka notch width is (10mm) which is 50% of the experimental forming depth (flange depth) of 20mm and the notch radius of curvature of 5mm is 25% of the experimental forming depth of 20mm and less than twice the width of the notch (2w = 20mm). It is obvious that using the teaching of Iizuka of 0.3 to 0.6 times a height of a flange portion when applied to the notch dimensions of Nakagawa that routine experimentation is easily performed to develop the relationships between forming depth, notch width and notch radius of curvature claimed.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (JP 2015-077627) in view of Persson (3,550,835). Regarding claim 3, Nakagawa discloses a boundary line (at the draw beads (5,15); Fig. 1) and a line of intersection through a top a of a vertex (8b; Fig. 2) of the notch (6) wherein Nakagawa discloses that a distance between the notch and boundary line is configured to be equal (0; length d of notch 6 not extending beyond the draw bead; [0043], lines 1-3) with a number of notches having a width (w) and the length (d) being selectable depending on an amount of excess material in the flange region ([0038], lines 5-7). A line extending from a corner of the blank (1; Fig. 1) would intersect with a vertical line (direction y; Fig. 2) through a center of the vertex (8b) of the notch (6) in an interior of the blank but Nakagawa does not specifically show that the notches are positioned so that the corner line, vertex line and boundary line intersect. Persson teaches a plan view of a blank (Fig. 3) that includes corner notches (15) on either side of respective corners defined by notch lines (scores; 21,22) that intersect with lines (scores;16,17) that define a center of the corner (18) wherein the notch lines (21,22) and score lines (16,17) intersect at a point on a boundary line between a flange (11,12,13,14) and a bottom (10) of a polygonal tray (2) when it is formed. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to form notches close to a corner in the blank of Nakagawa as taught by Persson so as to intersect notch lines and corner lines at a flange boundary line. It is an obvious design decision for the skilled artisan to position notches closer to a corner as in the plan view of Persson (Fig. 3) so that a line through a corner and a line through a notch intersect at a boundary line position as it only involves drawing lines on a blank sheet with routine experimentation by moving notches closer to a blank corner to define a corner of the blank as taught by Persson.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (JP 2015-077627) in view of Iizuka et al. (JP 01-233020) and further in view of Persson (3,550,835). Regarding claim 12, Nakagawa in view of Iizuka teaches a plurality of notches close to a corner of a blank and Nakagawa discloses a boundary line (at the draw beads (5,15); Fig. 1) and a line of intersection through a top a of a vertex (8b; Fig. 2) of the notch (6) wherein Nakagawa discloses that a distance between the notch and boundary line is configured to be equal (0; length d of notch 6 not extending beyond the draw bead; [0043], lines 1-3) with a number of notches having a width (w) and the length (d) being selectable depending on an amount of excess material in the flange region ([0038], lines 5-7). A line extending from a corner of the blank (1; Fig. 1) would intersect with a vertical line (direction y; Fig. 2) through a center of the vertex (8b) of the notch (6) in an interior of the blank but Nakagawa does not specifically show that the notches are positioned so that the corner line, vertex line and boundary line intersect.
Persson teaches a plan view of a blank (Fig. 3) that includes corner notches (15) on either side of respective corners defined by notch lines (scores; 21,22) that intersect with lines (scores;16,17) that define a center of the corner (18) wherein the notch lines (21,22) and score lines (16,17) intersect at a point on a boundary line between a flange (11,12,13,14) and a bottom (10) of a polygonal tray (2) when it is formed. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to form notches close to a corner in the blank of Nakagawa as taught by Persson so as to intersect notch lines and corner lines at a flange boundary line. It is an obvious design decision for the skilled artisan to position notches closer to a corner as in the plan view of Persson (Fig. 3) so that a line through a corner and a line through a notch intersect at a boundary line position as it only involves drawing lines on a blank sheet with routine experimentation by moving notches closer to a blank corner to define a corner of the blank as taught by Persson.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD THOMAS TOLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Chris Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
/EDWARD T TOLAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights