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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on May 20, 2026. The traversal is on the grounds that the claims of the present invention have unity of invention and no serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because the inventions have materially different designs and different classifications therefore, there is a serious burden of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 10 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morehead et al. (hereafter “Morehead”)(US 2005/0284206).
With regards to claim 10, Morehead discloses a tool holder assembly comprising:
a stationary portion (33) having a vertical side wall that partially defines a tool channel;
a movable portion (50) situated opposite the vertical side wall of the stationary portion;
an activation system (A) to which the movable portion is operatively linked, such that in response to activation of the system the movable portion is configured to move relative to the tool channel in a manner that results in locked engagement with tooling when loaded in the channel; and
at least two lighting arrangements [LED lights], a first of the lighting arrangements positioned to illuminate machining areas adjacent to the tool channel, a second of the lighting arrangements extending along a longitudinal extent of the stationary portion to signal statuses relative to one or more of current use of the movable portion and scheduled machining operations for the movable portion [paragraph 0099].
With regards to claim 15, Morehead discloses wherein the first and second lighting arrangements each comprises a lighting configuration involving a plurality of light sources, the plurality of light sources for each lighting arrangement configured for use in unison [paragraph 0099].
With regards to claim 16, Morehead discloses wherein the activation system is an electrical activation system [paragraph 0099].
With regards to claim 17, Morehead discloses further comprising a module for monitoring electrical parameters of the activation system, the module electrically connected to the second lighting arrangement to modify parameters of light projected from the second lighting arrangement based on the electrical parameters [paragraph 0099].
With regards to claim 18, Morehead discloses wherein the parameters of the light projected are one or more of color, intensity, and duration [paragraph 0099].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sundquist et al. (hereafter “Sundquist”)(US 2019/0001387).
With regards to claim 19, Morehead discloses a press brake machine (500) comprising: an upper beam (243) and a lower beam; and a holder assembly (see connection of 202 to 243) mounted on an end of one of the upper beam; wherein the end of the one upper is formed to interface and mate with a mounting surface of the holder assembly, as seen in Figure 2 and 5.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morehead.
Morehead discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the first lighting arrangement is at least partially shielded so as to direct light from the first lighting arrangement toward a working surface; wherein the light from the first lighting arrangement projects a desired bend line on the working surface, wherein the light from the first lighting arrangement projects information on the working surface corresponding to machining job order and wherein the first lighting arrangement comprises a plurality of lighting configurations each positioned in different locations on the tool holder assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to position the lights in the locations as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundquist.
Sundquist discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the end of the one upper beam or lower beam is formed with a mounting bar sized to align with mounting channel defined in the holder assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to invert the bar and channel as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morehead in view of Sundquist.
Morehead discloses the holder assembly as claimed and described above. Morehead discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the holder assembly is mounted on an end of an upper beam or lower beam of a press brake assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, that Morehead’s holder assembly would be interfacing with lower and upper beams, as taught by Sundquist, since Sundquist teaches it’s commonly known that a press brake includes of upper and lower beams.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and further show the state of the art: US 2020/0047301.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M EKIERT whose telephone number is (571)272-1901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM 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, Christopher 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.
/TERESA M EKIERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights