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 .
Response to Amendment
This Final Rejection is in response to the Amendment dated January 20, 2026 filed in response to the Non-final Rejection dated September 19, 2025.
The claim objections made in the Non-final Rejection are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments addressing the objections.
The 25 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 rejections in the previous Non-final Rejection are maintained as explained below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, starting on page 6 of the Amendment, the rejection is based on a misunderstanding of the invention. Examiner respectfully disagrees there was a misunderstanding of the invention. Morsut (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0271239 A1) may reasonably be interpreted as anticipating claim 1 as previously claimed and as currently amended because both the terms “coincide”, as previously claimed, and “align” as currently amended, are broad terms such that Morsut discloses the claimed limitation. That is, the tangential forces are in parallel alignment with the draw axis as Applicant’s annotated Fig. 1 of Morsut at the top of page 8 of the Amendment shows. The terms used do not require the tangential forces to be within the same horizontal plane as Applicant’s annotated drawing at the top of page 7 of the Amendment shows.
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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0271239 A1 by Morsut et al., hereinafter “Morsut”.
Regarding claim 1, Morsut discloses a draw bench (draw bench machine 100 in Fig. 1; ¶[0041]) comprising:
a draw bed (braw bead base 30 in Fig. 1; ¶[0061]), with a die block (die block 2 in Fig. 1; ¶[0057]) defining a draw axis (draw axis direction X in Fig. 1; ¶[0057]);
a draw carriage movable along the draw bed and aligned with respect to the draw axis (draw carriage 31 in Fig. 1 is movable along base 30 in alignment with direction X; ¶[0071]), and having at least two racks arranged in a fixed position on the draw bed and extending in a direction of the draw axis (¶[0094] disclose one rack 35 may be fastened to side wall 301 of base 30 in Fig. 1 and a second rack 35 may be fastened on the opposite side of base 30);
wherein the racks have toothing provided on sides of the racks that face towards or away from each other and mesh with drivable drive gears provided in the draw carriage (the toothing of rack 35 shown in Figs. 1 and 3 faces away from the toothing of a rack 35 positioned on the opposite side of base 30 and mesh with drivable drive pinion gears 34; ¶[0088]-[0096]);
wherein tooth forces are formed by the drive gears engaged with the toothing, and the drive gears and the racks are positioned so that a sum of all tangential components of the tooth forces aligns with the draw axis (tooth forces formed by drive pinion gears 34 in Fig. 1 are in parallel alignment with draw axis direction X); and
wherein torques caused by radial components of the tooth forces in a region of the two racks and acting on the draw carriage in opposite directions cancel each other out (torques cause by radial components of the tooth forces of pinions 34 at racks 35 act on draw carriage 35 in opposite directions such that they cancel each other out).
Regarding claim 2, Morsut anticipates the draw bench of claim 1 as explained above. Morsut further discloses wherein the racks (35 in Fig. 1) each mesh with two of the drivable drive gears (pinions 34 in Fig. 1) mounted in the draw carriage (31 in Fig. 1). Paragraph [0093] discloses an example where base 30 has a rack 35 arranged on both sides and draw carriage 31 has four motors 36, with two motors and their respective pinions meshed with each rack.
Regarding claim 3, Morsut anticipates the draw bench of claim 1 as explained above. Morsut further discloses wherein the drive gears (34 in Fig. 1) are each driven by a respective gear motor (motors 36 in Fig. 1; ¶[0072]).
Regarding claim 5, Morsut anticipates the draw bench of claim 2 as explained above. Morsut further discloses the drive gears are each driven by a respective gear motor. Each pinion drive gear 34 is driven by a gear motor 36 in Fig. 1.
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.
Claims 4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morsut in view of Chinese Patent Publication Document No. CN 106881363 A by Chen et al., hereinafter “Chen”. Citation of Chen is made to the European Patent Office Translation.
Regarding claims 4, 6, 7 and 8, Morsut anticipates the draw bench according to claims 1, 5, 2 and 3, respectively, as explained above. But Morsut does not disclose racks 35 in Fig. 1 are arranged in a plane inclined about the draw axis.
In the same field of drawing machines, Chen teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the racks of a drawing machine in a plane inclined about the drawing axis. See Fig. 9 and paragraphs [0053], [0085] and [0098].
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 Morsut’s racks 35 on base 30 in a plane inclined about direction X in the same way Chen teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Chen to the draw bench disclosed by Morsut would achieve the predictable result of arranging Morsut’s racks in an incline around the draw axis as Chen teaches.
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.
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
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights