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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 26, 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-final Rejection on November 25, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This Final Rejection is in response to the Amendment dated February 16, 2026 filed in response to the Non-final Rejection dated November 25, 2025.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections in the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims addressing the rejections.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 rejections in the previous Office action are maintained as explained below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant first argues, in the second paragraph of page 8 of the Amendment, Golovashchenko (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0091751 A1) does not address the distinct warping problem when forming a sequence of beads on a long component. In response, applicant’s argument is directed to a statement of purpose contained in the preamble of claim 22 that has no significance to its claim construction because the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention. See M.P.E.P. 2111.02,II. The body of claim 22 only claims the method step of “clamping the workpiece adjacent or in transition to each bead to be produced in a hold-down element with a form fit”. Golovashchenko discloses this method step and the additional functional language recitation following recital of the step, as explained in the previous rejection.
Applicant argues, starting in the third paragraph of page 8, claim 22 requires the form-fitting edge to be pressed into the surface of the workpiece to act as a barrier that blocks material from being drawn from outside the form-fit area whereas Golovashchenko’s draw bead 20 is pressed onto the surface of the workpiece to regulate material inflow. Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. Golovashchenko may reasonably be interpreted as disclosing draw bead 20 is pressed “into” the surface of the workpiece in the same way applicant’s form-fitting edge is pressed “into” the surface of the workpiece because they both press against a surface of the workpiece to make a deformation into the surface of the workpiece. Examiner notes the argued blocking of material is not recited in claim 22. However, Golovashchenko may also reasonably be interpreted as “blocking” material because “regulating” (applicant’s word) may reasonably be interpreted as at least including blocking unrestrained flow of material.
Applicant argues, in the third paragraph of page 9, Mitra (U.S. Patent No. 6,033,499) does not address the distinct warping problem when forming a sequence of beads on a long component. In response, applicant’s argument is directed to a statement of purpose contained in the preamble of claim 34 that has no significance to its claim construction because the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention. See M.P.E.P. 2111.02,II. The body of claim 34 only claims the method step of “clamping the workpiece adjacent or in transition to each bead to be produced in a hold-down element”. Mitra discloses this method step and the additional functional language recitation following recital of the step, as explained in the previous rejection.
Applicant argues, starting in the fourth paragraph of page 9, the rejection of claim 34 relies on a misapplication of Mitra. Examiner does not find the argument persuasive because the limitation of the stamping bulge being an “active forming tool” is not recited in claim 34. Further, examiner respectfully disagrees Mitra’s lockbead 30 may not reasonably be interpreted as an active forming tool. Mitra’s lockbead 30 actively clamps the workpiece to form the material into a reduced thickness section.
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.
Claims 22-25, 28-29, 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0091751 A1 by Golovashchenko, hereinafter “Golovashchenko”.
Regarding claim 22, Golovashchenko discloses a method for producing a cable tray component having a sequence of beads along a longitudinal extent thereof, wherein the cable tray component is formed from a metal workpiece and the beads are stamped into the workpiece (the method disclosed by Golovashchenko is used to produce a cable tray component as claimed where die cavity 34 in Fig. 1 produces one of a sequence of beads in a cable tray component), the method comprising:
clamping the workpiece adjacent or in transition to each bead to be produced in a hold-down element with a form fit which acts in a radial direction towards the bead to be produced (workpiece panel P in Fig. 1 is clamped adjacent or in transition to bead die cavity 34 in hold-down element binder ring segments 14 which are form-fit to act in the radial direction towards bead die cavity 34 as shown in Fig. 2; ¶[0030] and [0034]),
wherein the form fit is provided by at least one form-fitting edge pressed into a surface of the workpiece as a claw engaging in the surface of the workpiece (form-fit hold-down element binder ring segments 14 are provided with form-fitting edge draw beads 20 and 24 in Fig. 1 which press into the surface of workpiece panel P as claws to engage the surface of the workpiece; ¶[0032]-[0034]), such that at least one indentation following a shape of the bead to be produced is introduced into material of the workpiece by the hold-down element before the bead is formed (Fig. 1 shows draw beads 20 and 24 produce indentations following their shapes into workpiece panel P before punch 30 has reached bottom-dead-center; ¶[0036]).
Regarding claim 23, Golovashchenko anticipates the method of claim 22 as explained above. Golovashchenko further discloses the indentation is formed circumferentially around a surface region of the workpiece into which the bead is stamped. Fig. 2 shows draw bead 20 produces the indentation shown in Fig. 1 circumferentially around bead die cavity 34. See paragraph [0034].
Regarding claim 24, Golovashchenko anticipates the method of claim 22 as explained above. Golovashchenko further discloses the indentation and the form fit provided thereby is formed by a stamping tool or stamping tool part of the hold-down element on a surface of the workpiece, which is convexly curved at the transition to the bead during the process of stamping the bead. The form-fit indentation made by draw bead 24 is formed on stamping tool upper die 12 in Fig. 1, which is convexly curved at the transition to bead die cavity 34.
Regarding claim 25, Golovashchenko anticipates the method of claim 22 as explained above. Golovashchenko further discloses the indentation is formed by a stamping tool or stamping tool part of the hold-down element on both surfaces of the workpiece. Draw bead 24 of upper die 12 in Fig. 1 forms the indentation in the upper surface of workpiece panel P and draw bead 20 of binder ring segment 14 forms the indentation in the lower surface of workpiece panel P.
Regarding claim 28, Golovashchenko anticipates the method of claim 24 as explained above. Golovashchenko further discloses wherein a punch (punch 30 in Fig. 1) acts between the stamping tool (stamping tool upper die 12 in Fig. 1 with draw bead 24) on a region of the workpiece located between the at least one form-fitting edge in a direction of stamping of the bead to be produced (punch 30 acts between draw bead 24 which is located on both sides of the punch).
Regarding claim 29, Golovashchenko anticipates the method of claim 22 as explained above. Golovashchenko further discloses the indentation produced to form the form fit between the hold-down element and the workpiece is formed with a penetration depth which corresponds to at least 5% of the material thickness of the workpiece. The penetration depth of the indentations made by draw beads 20 and 24 are illustrating as being greater than the material thickness of workpiece panel P, thus satisfying the “at least 5%” recitation.
Regarding claim 31, Golovashchenko anticipates the method of claim 22 as explained above. Golovashchenko further discloses a plurality of form fits, which are each produced by a respective form-fitting edge, are formed (draw beads 20 and 24 in Fig. 1 are a plurality of form fits with a respective form fitting edge), and wherein the form fits act in the direction of the bead to be produced and are spaced apart in the radial direction with respect to the bead to be produced. Draw beads 20 and 24 are spaced apart in the radial direction with respect to bead die cavity 34 in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 32, Golovashchenko anticipates the method of claim 31 as explained above. Golovashchenko further discloses a plurality of indentations are introduced in both workpiece surfaces by the hold-down element, and the indentations are arranged offset from one another in the radial direction with respect to the bead to be produced. Draw bead 20 of hold-down element binder ring segment 14 in Fig. 1 cooperates with drawn bead 24 to introduce the plurality of radially-offset indentations in workpiece panel P as shown in Figs. 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 33, Golovashchenko discloses a bead press for producing a cable tray component according to the method of claim 22 (press die set 10 in Fig. 1), the bead press comprising:
a hold-down element with a tool table (tool table binder support ring 16 in Fig. 1; ¶[0030]) and a clamping jaw that acts against the tool table with interposition of a workpiece (clamping jaw upper die 12 with interposition of workpiece panel P in Fig. 1; ¶[0030]),
wherein the tool table and the clamping jaw each comprise a respective form-fitting edge that engages in a surface of the workpiece for forming an indentation in the workpiece (tool table ring 16 has form-fitting edge draw bead 20 and clamping jaw upper die 12 has form-fitting edge draw bead 24 which form indentations in workpiece panel P as shown in Fig. 1), thereby providing a form fit, which acts in a radial direction relative to the bead to be produced as a claw engaging in the surface of the workpiece, between the hold-down element and the workpiece for the process of bead stamping (Figs. 1 and 2 illustrate draw beads 20 and 24 provide form-fit indentations in workpiece panel P radially around bead die cavity 34), and
a stamping punch which interacts with an extractor for stamping the bead into the workpiece (stamping punch 30 in Fig. 1; ¶[0036]).
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.
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.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golovashchenko in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0161307 A1 by Zhou et al., hereinafter “Zhou ‘307”.
Regarding claim 26, Golovashchenko anticipates the method of claim 22 as explained above. However, Golovashchenko does not disclose wherein the at least one form-fitting edge projects from a clamping surface of the hold-down element with an asymmetrical cross-sectional profile.
In the same field of stamping metal workpieces, Zhou ‘307 teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to shape clamping surfaces of hold-down elements with an asymmetrical cross-sectional profile. See Fig. 2 showing asymmetrical clamping surface teeth 28 and 58 and corresponding written description at paragraphs [0018] through at least [0020].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to shape Golovashchenko’s draw beads 20 and 24 with an asymmetrical cross-sectional shape according to Zhou ‘307’s teaching in order to provide different material gripping attributes as Zhou ‘307 teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Zhou ‘307 to the method of Golovashchenko would achieve the predictable result of Golovashchenko’s method using asymmetrical clamping surfaces as Zhou ‘307 teaches.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golovashchenko in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,033,499 to Mitra, hereinafter “Mitra”.
Regarding claim 27, Golovashchenko anticipates the method of claim 22 as explained above. Golovashchenko further discloses forming of the bead (bead die cavity 34 in Fig. 1) is carried out with at least one stamping tool having a respective stamping bulge (stamping tool punch 30 in Fig. 1). However, Golovashchenko does not expressly disclose the bead edge region of the workpiece is reduced in terms of material thickness by deformation and is elongated in the direction of the bead to be produced.
In the same field of stamping metal workpieces, Mitra teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use hold-down elements adjacent a stamping tool to stretch the metal workpiece in order to reduce the material thickness in the direction of the area being stamped into the metal. See Figs. 1A through 1D and their corresponding written description at col. 3, line 39 through col. 5, line 3.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Mitra’s technique of stretch-forming to Golovashchenko’s disclosed method to reduce the material thickness of Golovashchenko’s panel P in the direction of bead die cavity 34. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Mitra to the method of Golovashchenko would achieve the predictable result of Golovashchenko’s method where the thickness of the material is reduced leading into the stamped area.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golovashchenko in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0406327 A1 by Zhou et al., hereinafter “Zhou ‘327”.
Regarding claim 30, Golovashchenko anticipates the method of claim 29 as explained above. But Golovashchenko does not discloses wherein the penetration depth corresponds, on each side of the workpiece, to at most 20-25% of the material thickness of the workpiece.
In the same field of stamping metal workpieces, Fig. 3 of Zhou ‘327 teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use stamping bulges which penetrate on each side of the workpiece to at most 25% of the material thickness.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Zhou’s ‘327’s teaching to Golovashchenko’s method to proportion draw beads 20 and 24 in relation to the thickness of panel P such that draw beads 20 and 24 only indented panel P to a depth of at most 25% as Zhou ‘327 teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Zhou ‘327 to Golovashchenko would achieve the predictable result of Golovashchenko’s method where the penetration depth of the indentations were 25% or less as Zhou ‘327 teaches.
Claims 34-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra in view of Golovashchenko.
Regarding claim 34, Mitra discloses a method for producing a cable tray component having a sequence of beads along a longitudinal extent thereof, wherein the cable tray component is formed from a metal workpiece and the beads are stamped into the workpiece (the method disclosed by Mitra may be used to produce a cable tray component as claimed where die cavity 42 in Fig. 1 produces one of a sequence of beads in a cable tray component), the method comprising:
clamping the workpiece adjacent or in transition to each bead to be produced in a hold-down element (workpiece sheet 10 in Fig. 1 is clamped adjacent or in transition to bead die cavity 42 between surface 22 of die 12 and die binder members 26; col. 3, line 39-59),
wherein, the workpiece in a bead edge region (region B in Fig. 1B; col. 3, line 65-col. 4, line 5) thereof is reduced in terms of material thickness in a direction of the bead to be produced (col. 4 line 13-21 disclose material thickness is thinned in region B as shown in the progression from Fig. 1B to Fig. 1D), over a portion extending in a radial direction towards the bead to be produced, by at least one stamping bulge located on the hold-down element (lockbead 30 in Fig. 1A is a stamping bulge located on hold-down element binder member 26), and is thus elongated in the direction of the bead to be produced (the material in region B is elongated as shown in the direction of the stamped area formed by punch 32).
Mitra does not disclose hold-down element binder member 26 follows an outline geometry of the die cavity 42 which produces the bead.
Golovashchenko teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the outline geometry of a bead-producing die cavity with hold-down elements as shown in Fig. 2 where binding ring segments 14 with draw beads 20 follow the outline geometry of die cavity 34.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange Mitra’s die binder members 26 to follow the outline geometry of die cavity 42 in the same way Golovashchenko teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Golovashchenko to the method of Mitra would achieve the predictable result of improving Mitra’s method by uniformly arranging the hold-down element to follow the outline of Mitra’s die cavity 42.
Regarding claim 35, the prior art reference combination of Mitra in view of Golovashchenko renders the method of claim 34 unpatentable as explained above. Mitra further discloses a stamping stroke for forming the bead is limited by abutment against clamping surfaces of the hold-down element. The stamping stroke of punch 32 in Fig. 1A is limited by abutment against die 12 with clamping surface 22.
Regarding claim 36, the prior art reference combination of Mitra in view of Golovashchenko renders the method of claim 34 unpatentable as explained above. Mitra further discloses a punch acts on a region of the workpiece located between clamping surfaces of the hold-down element in a direction of stamping of the bead to be produced. Punch 32 in Fig. 1B acts on region A of workpiece sheet 10 between surfaces 22 and binder members 26.
Regarding claim 37, the prior art reference combination of Mitra in view of Golovashchenko renders the method of claim 34 unpatentable as explained above. However, Mitra does not disclose introducing indentations in both surface of the workpiece as claimed in claim 37.
Golovashchenko teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange stamping bulge draw beads on both sides of the material to be stamped in hold-down elements. See draw bead 20 indenting the bottom surface of panel P and draw bead 24 indenting the top surface of panel P in Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a second stamping bulge draw bead to surface 22 of Mitra’s die 12 adjacent lockbead 30 in the same way Golovashchenko teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Golovashchenko to the method disclosed by Mitra would achieve the predictable result of indenting both surfaces of the workpiece as Golovashchenko teaches.
Regarding claim 38, the prior art reference combination of Mitra in view of Golovashchenko renders the method of claim 37 unpatentable as explained above. However, Mitra does not disclose the side of the stamping bulges which face away from the bead to be produce provide form-fitting edges that form a plurality of form fits, and wherein the form fits act in the direction of the bead to be produced and are spaced apart in the radial direction with respect to the bead to be produced.
Golovashchenko teaches form-fitting edges that form a plurality of form fits, and wherein the form fits act in the direction of the bead to be produced and are spaced apart in the radial direction with respect to the bead to be produced. Fig. 2 of Golovashchenko teaches binder 14 extends around bead-forming die cavity 34 in a form-fit manner where draw beads 20 and 24 create a plurality of form fits in the radial direction with respect to cavity 34.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of Golovashchenko to the method of Mitra to achieve the predictable result of a plurality of form-fits which are positioned radially outward from the die cavity as Golovashchenko teaches.
Regarding claim 39, the prior art reference combination of Mitra in view of Golovashchenko renders the method of claim 34 unpatentable as explained above. Mitra further discloses the at least one stamping bulge (lockbead 30 in Fig. 1A) forms an indentation circumferentially around a surface region of the workpiece into which the bead is stamped (indentation 24 in Fig. 1A is formed around the circumference of the bead stamped in die cavity 42 in that lockbead 30 is arranged around the periphery of sheet 10 as disclosed at col. 3, line 26-32).
Regarding claim 40, Mitra discloses a bead press for producing a cable tray component according to the method of claim 34 (the press holding the die set shown in Fig. 1A), where the bead press comprises a hold-down element comprising two interacting stamping tools (die 12 with surfaces 22 and binder members 26 in Fig. 1A). However, Mitra does not teach each stamping tool has a respective stamping bulge as claim 40 claims.
Golovashchenko teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide each stamping tool with a respective stamping tool bulge. See Fig. 1 of Golovashchenko where lower binder ring 14 has draw bead 20 and upper die 12 as draw bead 24.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a second stamping bulge draw bead to surface 22 of Mitra’s die 12 adjacent lockbead 30 in the same way Golovashchenko teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Golovashchenko to the method disclosed by Mitra would achieve the predictable result of indenting both surfaces of the workpiece as Golovashchenko teaches.
Regarding claim 41, the prior art reference combination of Mitra in view of Golovashchenko renders the method of claim 40 unpatentable as explained above. However, Mitra does not disclose a stamping gap delimited by opposing stamping bulges increases in a funnel manner in the direction of the bead to be produced.
Golovashchenko teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange stamping bulge draw bead 20 in relation to stamping bulge draw bead 24 so as to create a funnel-shaped gap therebetween which increases in the direction of bead-forming die cavity 34.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique taught by Golovashchenko to the method disclosed by Mitra to achieve the predictable result of Mitra’s method were a funnel-shaped gap is created between stamping bulge draw beads as Golovashchenko teaches.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern.
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.
/P DEREK PRESSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights