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 June 11, 2026 filed in response to the Non-final Rejection dated February 23, 2026.
Cancelation of claims 29-31 is acknowledged.
Addition of new claims 47-38 is acknowledged.
The claim objections in the previous Office action are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections in the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments addressing the rejections.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection in the previous Office action is maintained as explained below.
Response to Arguments
In the third paragraph of page 7 of the Amendment, Applicant states Bruggink is not adequate for uniquely identifying tools. Unique identification of tools is not claimed in amended claim 27. Accordingly, this argument is moot in relation to amended claim 27.
Starting in the bottom paragraph of page 7, Applicant argues Bruggink does not disclose two-way use of the transducers. As was stated in numbered paragraph 17 of the previous Office action, Bruggink does not expressly disclose LEDs 11 and 12 are each configured to both transmit and receive light. A 35 U.S.C. 102 anticipation rejection was not made because of this point. However, Bruggink teaches LEDs 11 and 12 are the same type of organic light-emitting diode technology, such that it would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 to use them as an emitter or a receiver to increase the number of possible data points.
Starting in the second full paragraph of page 8 of the Amendment, Applicant argues the Office Action does not explain why it would have been obvious to switch the functionality of the LEDs based upon Bruggink’s disclosure. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In rejecting independent claim 27, numbered paragraph 17 of the previous Office action explains LEDs 11 and 12 are disclosed as being the same type of organic light-emitting diode technology such that a person of ordinary skill would have recognized LEDs 11 and 12 can each be used as an emitter or a receiver to increase the number of possible data points. The rejection of dependent claim 31 in numbered paragraph 21 references this teaching to explain why it would have been obvious to configure the controller as claimed.
In the next to last paragraph of page 8, Applicant argues the distinction between elements would be removed if the direction of light transmission were alternated. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The distinction between the elements would not be removed during each instance of light transmission. Each instance of light transmission would still require an LED emitter and an LED receptor. The fact the roles of the LEDs may change at another instance does not render the distinction moot.
Starting in the last paragraph of page 8, Applicant argues reversing the direction does not actually add any additional information in the system of Bruggink. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Reversing the direction would change the reflected light received due to the differing size and distance between reflective surfaces 8 in relation to LEDs 11 and 12 which may be used to indicate additional information giving a person of ordinary skill the incentive to reverse the direction to allow further information to be generated. Accordingly, Examiner does not find the argument persuasive.
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 27-28 and 32-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2008/0043238 A1 by Bruggink, hereinafter “Bruggink”.
Regarding claim 27, Bruggink discloses a clamping system for a press brake or folding press (the clamping system shown in Fig. 1; ¶[0036]), the clamping system comprising:
a beam for holding one or more tools (beam receiving part 2 in Fig. 1 holding tool 5; ¶[0036]), and
a first transducer (first transducer light-emitting diodes (LEDs) 12 in Figs. 3-5; ¶[0041]) and a second transducer (second transducer LEDs 11 in Fig. 3-5), each of the first and second transducers being capable of transducing electrical energy to light and vice versa (LEDs 11 and 12 are both capable of transducing electrical energy to light and vice versa), the first transducer LEDs 12 being configured to transmit light towards tool 5 in beam receiving part 2 and the second transducer LEDs 11 being configured to receive light reflected from tool 5 in beam receiving part 2.
Bruggink does not expressly disclose LEDs 11 and 12 are each configured to both transmit and receive light. LEDs 11 are disclosed as only being “light-receptive sensors”. LEDs 12 are disclosed as only being a “light-emitting device”. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also use LEDs 11 as light-emitting devices and use LEDs 12 as light-receptive sensors because both are disclosed as being the same type of organic light-emitting diode technology. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized paragraphs [0011], [0015] and [0041] teach LEDs are capable of being both “light-emitting devices” and “light-receptive sensors” where all of the LEDs may be used as an emitter or a receiver to increase the number of possible data points.
Bruggink further teaches:
a controller for controlling the first and second transducer (paragraphs [0020] through [0027] disclose a controller controlling the LEDs);
the controller is configured to send an electrical signal to the first transducer while receiving an electrical signal from the second transducer during at least a first interval (Fig. 3 shows the controller sends an electrical signal to the first transducer light-emitting device LED 12 which emits light L and receives an electrical signal from second transducer light-receptive sensor LED 11 by receiving reflected light R. See paragraphs [0038] and [0039]); and
to configure the controller referenced in paragraphs [0020] through [0027] to send an electrical signal to LED 11 to emit light while LED 12 would send an electrical signal to the controller based upon received reflected light.
Regarding claim 28, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 27 unpatentable as explained above. Bruggink further teaches the at least two transducers are LEDs. Paragraph [0041] discloses light-receptive sensors 11 and light-emitting devices 12 may be organic light-emitting diodes (OLED).
Regarding claims 32-34, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 27 unpatentable as explained above. Paragraph [0041] discloses matrix 14 in Fig. 5 is comprised of a plurality of light-emitting device LEDs 12 and a plurality of light-receptive sensor LEDs 11 where light is emitted from the plurality of LEDs 12 and received by the plurality of LEDs 11. When applying the teaching explained in the rejection of claim 27 above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller referenced in paragraphs [0020] through [0027] to use all of the LEDs 11 and 12 as both light emitters and light receivers such that numerous patterns of emitter and receivers may be implemented to transmit data between the controller and tool 5.
Regarding claim 35, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 27 unpatentable as explained above. Bruggink further teaches the controller referenced in paragraphs [0020] through [0027] is configured to determine a characteristic of an electric signal received from transducer LEDs 11 based upon the location of the LED generating the electric signal. See paragraph [0039].
Regarding claim 36, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 27 unpatentable as explained above. Paragraph [0015] of Bruggink further teaches any kind of pattern of light-emitting devices and light-receptive sensors can be produced with OLED technology. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use transducer LEDs of mutually differing wavelength to achieve the predictable result of producing a different pattern of transducer LEDs by using LEDs of mutually differing wavelengths.
Regarding claim 37, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 27 unpatentable as explained above. Bruggink discloses the beam comprises a longitudinal receiving space for receiving at least a part of the one or more tools when held by the beam (Fig. 1 shows the beam comprises longitudinal receiving space part 2 holding the upper part of tool 5; ¶[0036]), wherein the first and second transducers are arranged in the receiving space (Figs. 3 and 4 show transducer LEDs 11 and 12 arranged in the longitudinal receiving space structure 2 as described in paragraphs [0038] and [0039]).
Regarding claim 38, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 27 unpatentable as explained above. Paragraph [0041] discloses matrix 14 in Fig. 5 is comprised of a plurality of light-emitting device LEDs 12 and a plurality of light-receptive sensor LEDs 11.
Regarding claim 39, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 27 unpatentable as explained above. Bruggink further discloses a tool (tool 5 in Fig. 2; ¶[0037]) comprising a marking (marking means 6 in Fig. 2) having encoded therein at least an identification number (¶[0037] discloses marking means 6 has the identity of tool 5 encoded in the unique pattern of reflective areas 8).
Regarding claim 40, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 39 unpatentable as explained above. Bruggink further discloses the marking (marking means 6 in Fig. 2) has features of a characteristic dimension similar to or larger than a dimension of the first and/or second transducer (marking means 6 in Fig. 4 is illustrated with spatial features between reflective surfaces 8 which are similar to or larger than LEDs 11 and 12).
Regarding claim 41, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 39 unpatentable as explained above. Bruggink further discloses the marking (marking means 6 in Figs. 2 and 4) comprises features distinguishable by reflectance of reflective areas 8).
Regarding claim 42, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 41 unpatentable as explained above. Bruggink further discloses the identification number of the marking is encoded in a discrete code. Figs. 2 and 4 show marking means 6 is encoded in discrete reflective areas 8 to identify tool 5.
Regarding claim 43, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 41 unpatentable as explained above. Bruggink further discloses the code is of a higher ordinal than two. Fig. 2 shows at least three different types of reflective areas 8 such that a code of higher ordinal than two is disclosed.
Regarding claim 44, Bruggink discloses a tool (tool 5 in Figs. 1 and 2) for use in a press brake or folding press having the clamping system of claim 27 (see the rejection of claim 27 above) comprising a marking (marking means 6 in Figs. 1 and 2) having encoded therein at least an identification number (¶[0037] discloses marking means 6 has the identity of tool 5 encoded in the unique pattern of reflective areas 8) where the marking is configured to reflect light received from the first and second transducers in the assembly according to claim 27 (Figs. 3 and 4 show how light emitted from LEDs is reflected off reflective areas 8). Marking means 6 comprises features distinguishable by the reflectance of the surface which continuously varies in analog encoding across the surface of marking means 6.
Regarding claim 45, Bruggink renders the tool according to claim 44 unpatentable as explained above. Bruggink further discloses the surface characteristic is reflectance. Figs. 2 and 4 show marking means 6 comprises reflective surfaces 8.
Regarding claim 46, Bruggink discloses a tool for use in a press brake or folding press having the clamping system of claim 27 (tool 5 in Figs. 1 and 2), the tool comprising a marking having encoded therein at least an identification number (¶[0037] discloses marking means 6 has the identity of tool 5 encoded in the unique pattern of reflective areas 8), wherein
the identification number of the marking is encoded in a discrete code, the code being of a higher ordinal than two (Fig. 2 shows at least three different types of reflective areas 8 such that a code of higher ordinal than two is disclosed.).
Regarding claim 47, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 35 unpatentable as explained above. Paragraph [0016] teaches the controller referenced in paragraphs [0020] through [0027] uses voltage as the determining characteristic.
Regarding claim 48, Bruggink renders the clamping system according to claim 37 unpatentable as explained above. Fig. 1 of Bruggink discloses the transducers are arranged at a side of the receiving space in tool receiving part 2 opposite means 6.
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
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725 21 September 2026
Prosecution Insights