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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/23/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, filed 7/23/26, with respect to the rejection of claims 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is moot in view of applicant’s amendment to claim 4. The rejection of claim 4 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/26, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are directed to claim limitations which have not yet been considered.
Applicant argues that the instant invention operates differently than Little because the instant invention generates an adjustable ON/OFF electrical pulses which is selected to simulate an operating speed conditions. Applicant argues, page 5, that “adjusting or reprogramming a PLC to match a production line speed is not the same as a timing device configured to generate adjustable ON/OFF electrical pulses at a selectable number of pulses per minute”. The new limitations are taught by Lemelson as shown in the rejection below.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Little et al. (US7331244) in view of Romano (US20040187597) further in view of Lemelson (US4285903).
Claim 1: Little teaches a test/inspection apparatus (assembly 20) for dies for electrical use, in particular for dies for cutting magnetic metal plates adapted to be packed or superimposed on top of one another to define layered packs for use in electric machines (this does not result in any structural differences over the prior art, Little is capable of performing the intended use), wherein said test/inspection apparatus is adapted for removably coupling to a cutting die (the apparatus 20 is removably coupled to the die 42 of a die set 40) positioned on a bench and operable independently from a cutting press for testing/inspecting off the cutting press special functions or mechanical elements of a cutting die which enable/disable one or more cutting elements of said die, wherein said test/inspection apparatus comprises a device (apparatus 20), which further comprises a portable box-like body (col. 3, lines 35-44), the portable box-like body (apparatus 20) comprising: one or more solenoid valves (solenoid valves 24a-c, col. 4, lines 31-38) arranged for enabling/disabling the actuation of one or more actuators (actuation assembly 20 and connections 22a-c connect to mechanical devices 44a-44c) external to the cutting press and coupled directly to a special functions or mechanical elements of a cutting die (the connections 22a-c are connected to the mechanical devices 44a-c of the die 42), one or more timing devicespowered) for supplying power to said at least one solenoid valve and said at least one timer (the power enables the controls/controller. Col. 5, lines 9-11).
Little fails to teach a power supply integrated within the portable box-like body.
However, Romano teaches a portable test device 100 (Fig. 1) including a power interface including a fixed power source 109a, 109b which are DC sources (batteries). Therefore, batteries are a portable power source.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a portable power source, as taught by Romano, with the device of Little for the obvious benefit of having a portable power source to simplify the device by not requiring connection to external power.
Little in view of Romano fails to teach wherein the at least one timing device is configured to send an on/off type electrical pulse to the solenoid valve, said current pulse being adjustable over time by adjusting the number of pulses per minute for simulating possible speed conditions of the cutting die during bench testing.
However, Lemelson teaches predetermined time durations for opening and closing a solenoid (col. 9, lines 49-59: the master controller 71 may comprise an adjustable multi-circuit self recycling timer operable to generate control signals of predetermined time durations for energizing the various motors and valve solenoids described for predetermined time durations to define a particular molding cycle of the type described or to generate control pulse signals on the outputs 72 which are applied to start and stop motors, open and close valves and to perform the functions described during predetermined times in a molding cycle. ) Therefore, the control pulse signals are used to start/stop/open/close valves, the timer is adjustable and can be programmed for a particular number of pulses/control signals per specified unit of time (duration).
The nature of the problem to be solved -controlling the action of solenoid valves- as well as the need to mimic/simulate a manufacturing process would lead a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose an appropriate control timing and manner of executing the control at desired times. Little teaches control of the valves 44a-c in order to correspond to the timings of the device rotation angles in an actual stamping operation (col. 6, lines 37-41, 60-64). Therefore the programmed timing for the solenoid valves is adjustable and is desirably adjusted to the manufacturing process. Similarly, Lemelson teaches predetermined timing sequence for solenoid valves wherein control pulse signals are used to open and close valves during predetermined times in a molding cycle- thus the solenoid timing is coordinated with the manufacturing process (col. 9, lines 49-59).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use timer including a pulse signal for activation or deactivation of a solenoid, as taught by Lemelson, with the device of Little in view of Romano for the predictable result of permitting flow through the solenoid only at predetermined times (Lemelson, col. 9, lines 29-35).
Claim 4: Little in view of Romano further in view of Lemelson teaches the device of claim 1. Little teaches wherein the at least one solenoid valve (valves 24a-c) is connected to at least one actuator (mechanical devices 44a-c) by means of compressed air pipes (pneumatic connections 22a-c, Fig. 1-2) and is connected to the at least one timer by means of cables (see Fig. 2 which shows connections from the control system 30; the control system 30 selectively controls the valves 24a-c in a particular, predetermined sequence/timing. Col. 9, lines 57-64), wherein said compressed air pipes extend externally from the portable box-like body to the cutting die (Fig. 2 shows the connections 22a-c extending from the portable body 20), wherein the compressed air pipes (22a-22c) are configured to connect the solenoid valve to the actuator for enabling actuation of the cutting die (mechanical device 44a-c).
Claim 5: Little in view of Romano further in view of Lemelson teaches the device of claim 4. Little teaches timing the valves 24a-c in order to implement a predetermined sequences of valve operations to simulate a predetermined sequence of mechanical operations without actually operating the stamping press (col. 4, lines 56-61). Little in view of Romano fails to teach wherein the solenoid valve opens and closes the compressed air circuit as a function of the number and sequence of pulses selected by the timer for an activation/deactivation of the actuator to simulate operational cycles of the cutting die special function synchronized with the number of pulses selected by the timer itself.
However, Lemelson teaches predetermined time durations for opening and closing a solenoid (col. 9, lines 49-59: the master controller 71 may comprise an adjustable multi-circuit self recycling timer operable to generate control signals of predetermined time durations for energizing the various motors and valve solenoids described for predetermined time durations to define a particular molding cycle of the type described or to generate control pulse signals on the outputs 72 which are applied to start and stop motors, open and close valves and to perform the functions described during predetermined times in a molding cycle. ) Therefore, the control pulse signals are used to start/stop/open/close valves, the timer is adjustable and can be programmed for a particular number of pulses/control signals per specified unit of time (duration).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use timer including a pulse signal for activation or deactivation of a solenoid, as taught by Lemelson, with the device of Little in view of Romano for the predictable result of permit flow through the solenoid only at predetermined times (Lemelson, col. 9, lines 29-35).
Clam 6: Little in view of Romano further in view of Lemelson teaches the device of claim 4. Little in view of Romano fails to teach wherein the at least one timer activates/deactivates the at least one solenoid valve by means of an electrical pulse of on/off type to the solenoid valve, said current pulse being adjustable in time by adjusting the number of pulses per minute.
However, Lemelson teaches predetermined time durations for opening and closing a solenoid (col. 9, lines 49-59: the master controller 71 may comprise an adjustable multi-circuit self recycling timer operable to generate control signals of predetermined time durations for energizing the various motors and valve solenoids described for predetermined time durations to define a particular molding cycle of the type described or to generate control pulse signals on the outputs 72 which are applied to start and stop motors, open and close valves and to perform the functions described during predetermined times in a molding cycle. ) Therefore, the control pulse signals are used to start/stop/open/close valves, the timer is adjustable and can be programmed for a particular number of pulses/control signals per specified unit of time (duration).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use and adjustable timer including a pulse signal for activation or deactivation of a solenoid, as taught by Lemelson, with the device of Little in view of Romano for the predictable result of permitting flow through the solenoid only at predetermined times (Lemelson, col. 9, lines 29-35).
Claim 7: Little in view of Romano further in view of Lemelson teaches the device of claim 4. Little teaches wherein the number of solenoid valves corresponds to the number of actuators which is corresponding to the number of special functions or mechanical elements of a cutting die to be tested (three valves 24a-c, three mechanical devices 44a-c). Little in view of Romano fails to teach wherein the number of timers is functional to the number of solenoid valves.
However, Lemelson teaches that a single timer (master controller 71) can independently control multiple solenoid valves 90, 91, 93, Fig. 5 and is therefore functional to the number of valves. Lemelson fails to teach that the number of timers corresponds to the number of actuators and special functions. However, the use of multiple timers to control respective multiple valves and actuators is a duplication of parts which produces no new or unexpected results since Lemelson illustrates only one timer is needed.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a number of timers functional to the number of actuators and special functions in order in order to provide a more fail-safe device in the event of failure of an individual timer.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Little in view of Romano further in view of Lemelson further in view of Mills (US4587830).
Claim 2: Little in view of Romano further in view of Lemelson teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the actuators comprise a double-acting piston.
However, Mills teaches a typical punch press which uses a double-acting actuator 20 to vertically reciprocate a piston rod 22.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a double-acting piston, as taught by Mills, with the device of Little in view of Romano further in view of Lemelson in order to utilize convenient, slidable mounting (Mills, col. 1, lines 5-9).
Claim 3: Little in view of Romano further in view of Lemelson further in view of Mills teaches the device of claim 2. Little in view of Romano further in view of Lemelson fails to teach wherein the pistons are of the pneumatic type.
Mills teaches wherein the pistons are of the pneumatic type (col. 1, lines 15-19).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a double-acting piston, as taught by Mills, with the device of Little in view of Romano further in view of Lemelson in order to utilize convenient, slidable mounting (Mills, col. 1, lines 5-9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN MORELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-6583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/JEAN F MORELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 8/10/26
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights