DEATILED SCTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 16th 2026 and March 25th 2026 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claims Status:
Claims 1-5 and 8-14 are pending.
Claims 12-14 are newly cited.
Claims 6-7 are cancelled.
Claims 1-5 and 8-11 are amended.
Claims 1-5 and 8-11 are examined as follow:
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:
In claims 1 and 8, the feature of “a plating deviation suppressor” is not shown in any drawing.
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 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:
Claim limitation “plating deviation suppressor” in claims 1 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “suppressor" coupled with functional language “…configured to suppress a deviation…” and “ … separates the plated material and the forming die…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is only preceded by an insufficient structural modifier “plate deviation”. A review of the specification shows that, although there is no such actual term cited in the specification but only a similar terms “plating deviation suppression mechanism” is located, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The limitation “plating deviation suppression mechanism " has been described in Paragraph 0027-0033, 0059 and 0062 as a plated metal material that have a current flow direction that is opposite of the current flow direction in the heated metal material, and the current flowing in the plate will generate a magnetic field that will mechanically and electrically suppressing the heated metal material, such as mechanical suppression (refer to Paragraph 0030) is suppressing the movement of the heated metal material by a magnetic force that generated by the counter magnetic field from the current that run through the plate; electrical suppression (refer to Paragraph 0062) is suppressing the rate of increase of the electrical current in the heated metal material through the counter magnetic field generated by the current that run through the heated metal material.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claims 1 and 8, applicant has not pointed out were the amended limitation are supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “a plating deviation suppressor” in the application filed, See Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, 83 USPQ2d1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Claims 2-5 and 9-14 are rejected based on the inherited deficiencies of the corresponding independent claim.
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 1-5 and 8-14 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.
Claims 1 and 8 are indefinite, because the newly amended term “…a plating deviation suppressor…” invoked 112f and it is not described in the specification or the drawing. It is unclear what actually is the “suppressor” is. Clarification is required. For examination purpose, Examiner assumed that such amended term is related to the original term “plating deviation suppression mechanism”, the Examiner’s interpretation would be similar to the previous rejection and what cited in the 112f claim interpretation section above.
Claims 2-5 and 9-14 are rejected based on the inherited deficiencies of the corresponding independent claim.
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 and 8-9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP6337738B2 (previously cited) herein set forth as JP37738B2, in view of Davila-Peralta et al (US2021/0346932A1 newly cited) herein set forth as Davila, and further in view of EP3067128A1 (previously cited) herein set forth as EP67128A1.
Regarding claim 1, in view with the 112b assumption above, JP37738B2 discloses a forming system (refer as “hot stamping” in specification of Technical field section cited: “…a device for electrically heating a plated metal plate for hot stamping…”) comprising:
a heater (heating unit #10, fig 2) that causes a current (refer to “I1” in fig. 2) to flow through a plated metal material (plated metal material #11, fig.2) to heat the plated metal material (plated metal material #11, fig.2);
a forming die (refer to NPL-hot-stamping at footnote1 as evidence that “hot-stamping” inherently discloses a forming die) that forms the heated plated metal material (plated metal material #11, fig.2), and
a plating deviation suppressor (refer to fig.2 that the opposite current flow I2 generated in #12a ) that suppresses (refer to the interaction between “I1” and “I2” in fig.2, such that “I2” is always suppressing the “I1”changes in current flow and magnetic field no matter is start or stop heating) a deviation of a plating (refer to the shape of #11 in fig.2) in the plated metal material (plated metal material #11, fig.2) due to energization heating (refer to the heating of heating unit #10 in fig.2).
PNG
media_image1.png
397
463
media_image1.png
Greyscale
JP37738B2 does not disclose the forming die being a magnetic body; wherein the plating deviation suppressor separates the plated metal material and the forming die from each other by a predetermined distance or more during energization heating.
In the similar field of induction heating for hot stamping, Davila discloses the forming die (#105, fig.9) being a magnetic body (refer to #104 conducting current as an induction coil, therefore per Ampere’s Circuital Law, a body conducting current would inherently generate a magnetic field, such that would considered as magnetic body).
PNG
media_image2.png
347
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified JP37738B2’s forming die with a magnetic body, as taught by Davila, in order to provide the electrical current through the forming die that would help provide a more well distributed heat and better ending product.
Davila does not explicitly disclose wherein the plating deviation suppressor separates the plated metal material and the forming die from each other by a predetermined distance or more during energization heating.
In the similar field of hot stamping system, EP67128A1 discloses wherein the plating deviation suppressor (refer to fig. 2a as a whole) separates the plated metal material (#100, fig.2a) and the forming die (refer to the “forming section” annotated in fig.2a below) from each other by a predetermined distance or more (refer to the distance between the heater section and the forming section) during energization heating.
PNG
media_image3.png
376
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified JP37738B2’s system with wherein the plating deviation suppressor separates the plated metal material and the forming die from each other by a predetermined distance or more during energization heating, as taught by EP67128A1, in order to provide a production line that capable for a faster production rate, such that would lower overhead cost per product, and able to provide better profit margin.
Regarding claim 2, the modification of JP37738B2, Davila and EP67128A1 discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, JP37738B2 further discloses wherein the plating deviation suppressor (refer to fig.2 that the opposite current flow I2 generated in #12a ) is configured to electrically suppress (refer to the interaction between “I1” and “I2” in fig.2, such that “I2” is always suppressing the “I1”changes in current flow and magnetic field no matter is start or stop heating) the deviation of the plating (refer to the shape of #11 in fig.2).
Regarding claim 3, the modification of JP37738B2, Davila and EP67128A1 discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 2, JP37738B2 further discloses wherein the plating deviation suppressor (refer to fig.2 that the opposite current flow I2 generated in #12a ) is configured to suppress (refer to the interaction between “I1” and “I2” in fig.2, such that “I2” is always suppressing the “I1”changes in current flow and magnetic field no matter is start or stop heating) a change in a current (refer as “I1” for heating) when energization heating (refer to the heating in fig.2) is stopped.
Regarding claim 4, the modification of JP37738B2, Davila and EP67128A1 discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 2, JP37738B2 further discloses wherein the plating deviation suppressor (refer to fig.2 that the opposite current flow I2 generated in #12a ) configured to suppress (refer to the interaction between “I1” and “I2” in fig.2, such that “I2” is always suppressing the “I1”changes in current flow and magnetic field no matter is start or stop heating) a current (refer as start “I1” for heating)for energization heating (refer to the heating in fig.2).
Regarding claim 8, in view of the 112b assumption above, JP37738B2 discloses a forming system (refer as “hot stamping” in specification of Technical field section cited: “…a device for electrically heating a plated metal plate for hot stamping…”) comprising:
a heater (heating unit #10, fig 2) that causes a current (refer to “I1” in fig. 2) to flow through a plated metal material (plated metal material #11, fig.2) to heat the plated metal material (plated metal material #11, fig.2);
a forming die (refer to NPL-hot-stamping at footnote2 as evidence that “hot-stamping” inherently discloses a forming die) that forms the heated plated metal material (plated metal material #11, fig.2), and
a plating deviation suppressor (refer to fig.2 that the opposite current flow I2 generated in #12a ) that suppresses (refer to the interaction between “I1” and “I2” in fig.2, such that “I2” is always suppressing the “I1”changes in current flow and magnetic field no matter is start or stop heating) a deviation of a plating (refer to the shape of #11 in fig.2) in the plated metal material (plated metal material #11, fig.2) due to energization heating (refer to the heating of heating unit #10 in fig.2).
PNG
media_image1.png
397
463
media_image1.png
Greyscale
JP37738B2 does not disclose the forming die being a magnetic body; wherein the plating deviation suppressor is configured by the heater that heats the plated metal material outside the forming die during energization heating.
In the similar field of induction heating for hot stamping, Davila discloses the forming die (#105, fig.9) being a magnetic body (refer to #104 conducting current as an induction coil, therefore per Ampere’s Circuital Law, a body conducting current would inherently generate a magnetic field, such that would considered as magnetic body).
PNG
media_image2.png
347
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified JP37738B2’s forming die with a magnetic body, as taught by Davila, in order to provide the electrical current through the forming die that would help provide a more well distributed heat and better ending product.
Davila does not explicitly disclose wherein the plating deviation suppressor is configured by the heater that heats the plated metal material outside the forming die during energization heating.
In the similar field of hot stamping system, EP67128A1 discloses wherein the plating deviation suppressor (refer to fig. 2a as a whole) is configured by the heater (refer to “heater section” annotated in fig. 2a below) that heats the plated metal material (#100, fig.2a) outside the forming die (refer to the “forming section” annotated in fig.2a below) during energization heating.
PNG
media_image3.png
376
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified JP37738B2’s system with wherein the plating deviation suppressor separates the plated metal material and the forming die from each other by a predetermined distance or more during energization heating, as taught by EP67128A1, in order to provide a production line that capable for a faster production rate, such that would lower overhead cost per product, and able to provide better profit margin.
Regarding claim 9, the modification of JP37738B2, Davila and EP67128A1 discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, JP37738B2 further discloses wherein the plating deviation suppressor (refer to fig.2 that the opposite current flow I2 generated in #12a ) is configured by a magnetic shield (refer to the magnetic shield that generated by “I2” in #12a and #13a in fig.2) disposed around the metal material (plated metal material #11, fig.2) during energization heating (refer to the heating in fig.2).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP6337738B2 herein set forth as JP37738B2, in view of Davila-Peralta et al (US2021/0346932A1 newly cited) herein set forth as Davila, further in view of EP3067128A1 (previously cited) herein set forth as EP67128A1, and further in view of CN107923860B herein set forth as CN23860B.
Regarding claim 5, the modification of JP37738B2, Davila and EP67128A1 discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 2, JP37738B2 further discloses wherein the plating deviation suppression mechanism (refer to fig.2 that the opposite current flow I2 generated in #12a ) is configured by the heating unit (heating unit #10, fig 2).
JP37738B2 does not explicitly disclose a control unit for controlling the heating unit, and the control unit is electrically connected to a power supply of the heating unit and controls a heating timing by the heating unit by transmitting a control signal to the power supply and controls a heating temperature by adjusting a magnitude of the current.
In the field of heating element control, CN23860B discloses a control unit (control circuit #4, fig.1) for controlling the heating unit (heater #22, fig.1), and the control unit (control circuit #4, fig.1) is electrically connected to a power supply (high voltage circuit #11, fig.1) of the heating unit (heater #22, fig.1) and controls a heating timing (refer to “predetermined time” cited in the citation below) by the heating unit (heater #22, fig.1) by transmitting a control signal (refer to the sensor signal of sensor #29 in fig.1) to the power supply (high voltage circuit #11, fig.1) and controls a heating temperature (refer to NPL-machine translate page 4 3rd paragraph cited: “…the granular substance detection system can use the control circuit calculating the heater resistor, and can accurately calculate the temperature of the heater using the calculated value. …”) by adjusting a magnitude of the current (refer to NPL machine translate Page 14 2nd paragraph cited: “…temperature T here, control the amount of current flowing through the heater 22 so that the heater 22 is in the range determined in advance…”).
PNG
media_image4.png
674
520
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified JP37738B2’s system with a control unit for controlling the heating unit, and the control unit is electrically connected to a power supply of the heating unit and controls a heating timing by the heating unit by transmitting a control signal to the power supply and controls a heating temperature by adjusting a magnitude of the current, as taught by CN23860B, in order to provide better control, more efficient energy consumption heating unit for the forming system, such that would reduce overhead cost and increase adaptability for the system.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP6337738B2 herein set forth as JP37738B2, in view of Davila-Peralta et al (US2021/0346932A1 newly cited) herein set forth as Davila, further in view of EP3067128A1 (previously cited) herein set forth as EP67128A1, and further in view of EP3281717A2 herein set forth as EP81717A2.
Regarding claim 10, the modification of JP37738B2, Davila and EP67128A1 discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 9, JP37738B2 further discloses wherein the magnetic shield (refer to #12a and #13a in fig.2) is composed of two members (refer to #12a and #13a in fig.2) and covers the metal material plated metal material #11, fig.2) by combining the two members (refer to #12a and #13a in fig.2) during energization heating (refer to the heating in fig.2).
JP37738B2 does not explicitly discloses wherein the magnetic shield is composed of two semi-circular members.
In the similar field of hot stamping system, EP81717A2 discloses wherein the magnetic shield (refer to first forming plate #110 and second forming plate #120 in fig.1) is composed of two semi-circular members (refer to shape of first forming plate #110 and second forming plate #120 in fig.1).
PNG
media_image5.png
482
573
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified JP37738B2’s system with wherein the magnetic shield is composed of two semi-circular members, as taught by EP3281717A2, in order to create the capability to handle a different shape of the metal material, such that would increase the utilization and marketability of the system.
Regarding claim 11, the modification of JP37738B2, Davila, EP67128A1 and EP3281717A2 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 10, JP37738B2 does not explicitly disclose wherein the magnetic shield is retracted from a periphery of the metal material at the time of forming.
In the similar field of hot stamping system, EP67128A1 further discloses disclose wherein the magnetic shield (refer to the annotated “heater section” in fig.2a) is retracted from a periphery of the metal material (workpiece #100 fig.2a) at the time of forming (refer to annotated “forming section” in fig. 2a).
PNG
media_image3.png
376
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified JP37738B2’s system with wherein the magnetic shield is retracted from a periphery of the metal material at the time of forming, as taught by EP67128A1, in order to provide a production line that capable for a faster production rate, such that would lower overhead cost per product, and able to provide better profit margin.
Regarding claim 12, the modification of JP37738B2, Davila and EP67128A1 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 8, JP37738B2 does not explicitly disclose comprising a magnetic shield disposed around the plated metal material during energization heating.
In the similar field of hot stamping system, EP67128A1 further discloses disclose comprising a magnetic shield (refer to first forming plate #110 and second forming plate #120 in fig.1) disposed around the plated metal material (#150, fig.1) during energization heating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified JP37738B2’s system with comprising a magnetic shield disposed around the plated metal material during energization heating, as taught by EP3281717A2, in order to create the capability to handle a different shape of the metal material and magnetic shielding that prevent magnetic field leak to other part of the invention, such that would increase the utilization and marketability of the system, and reduce possible damages that caused by magnetic field leak.
Regarding claim 13, the modification of JP37738B2, Davila, EP67128A1 and EP67128A1 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 12, JP37738B2 does not explicitly disclose wherein the magnetic shield is composed of two semi-circular members and covers the plated metal material by combining the two members during energization heating.
In the similar field of hot stamping system, EP67128A1 further discloses disclose wherein the magnetic shield (refer to first forming plate #110 and second forming plate #120 in fig.1) is composed of two semi-circular members (refer to the curved shape of #110 and #120 in fig.1) and covers the plated metal material (#150, fig.1) by combining the two members (refer as #110 and #120 come together in fig.1) during energization heating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified JP37738B2’s system with wherein the magnetic shield is composed of two semi-circular members and covers the plated metal material by combining the two members during energization heating, as taught by EP3281717A2, in order to create the capability to handle a different shape of the metal material and magnetic shielding that prevent magnetic field leak to other part of the invention, such that would increase the utilization and marketability of the system, and reduce possible damages that caused by magnetic field leak.
Regarding claim 14, the modification of JP37738B2, Davila, EP67128A1 and EP67128A1 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 13, JP37738B2 does not explicitly disclose wherein the magnetic shield is retracted from a periphery of the plated metal material at the time of forming.
In the similar field of hot stamping system, EP67128A1 further discloses disclose wherein the magnetic shield (refer to the heater section annotated in fig. 2a) is retracted from a periphery of the plated metal material (#100, fig.2a) at the time of forming (refer to the forming section annotated in fig.2a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified JP37738B2 with wherein the magnetic shield is retracted from a periphery of the plated metal material at the time of forming, as taught by EP67128A1, in order to create the capability to handle a different shape of the metal material and magnetic shielding that prevent magnetic field leak to other part of the invention, such that would increase the utilization and marketability of the system, and reduce possible damages that caused by magnetic field leak.
Response to Amendment
With respect to the Claim Objection: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on May 11th 2026 that overcame the Claim Objection in the previous office action.
With respect to the Notification of 112f: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on May 11th 2026 that overcame the Notification of 112f in the previous office action. However the newly amended “suppressor” as cited in claim 1 and 8 are still invoke 112f.
the applicant’s amendment filed on May 11th 2026 has raised new issue of Drawing objection, 112a and 112b rejection.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed May 11th 2026 have been fully considered:
Regarding to the argument of the newly amended limitation, it is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection with the newly cited secondary Prior art Davila-Peralta et al (US2021/0346932A1).
Regarding to the argument of hindsight, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, the prior art of records in argument are all in the same hot stamping field, such that would be obvious to combine them.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
FROST et al (US2016/0228934A1) discloses a hot forming and press harden component that only read on some of the limitation cited in the independent claims.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 July 9th 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
1 Refer to attached NPL-Chapter 7: Hot Stamping in “Sheet Metal Forming - Processes and Application” by T. Altan and A.E. Tekkaya, page 2 in NPL(page# 134) mentioning die for the stamping.
2 Refer to attached NPL-Chapter 7: Hot Stamping in “Sheet Metal Forming - Processes and Application” by T. Altan and A.E. Tekkaya, page 2 in NPL(page# 134) mentioning die for the stamping.
Prosecution Insights