DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application and claims filed on December 27, 2023. Claims 1-15 are pending, with claims 1, 11 and 13 in independent claim form.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-118253 filed on 07/16/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a plurality of segment” of claim 1, also recited in claims 2-3, 5-13, “a ridgeline” of claim 2, also recited in claim 9, “a bend portion” of claim 2, also recited in claims 3,6,8 and 9, “a separate block and a main body” of claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 line 1, recited the limitation of “at least one segment“ is suggested to be replaced with “at least one segment of the plurality of segments“, also see claims 7,
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13, reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description and the drawings may be used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims. The reference characters, however, should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. Generally, the presence or absence of such reference characters does not affect the scope of a claim. MPEP 608.01(m)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The recitation of “plan view” throughout the claims, is indefinite as the limitation referred to drawings and does not disclose the structure limitation, the Applicant is seeking patent for. The claims need to be concise and clearly defining the structures of limitation, furthermore it is unclear if Applicant meant “plain view”.
Claim 1 in line 5, recited the limitations “the die includes” is indefinite, it is unclear which of the dies (upper or lower or both), Applicant is referring to, clarity is needed.
Claim 1 in line 7, recited the limitations “a plurality of segments each including a space surrounded by the rib” is indefinite, this recitation of the rib is not clear since lines 5-6 required “a rib crossing the processing surface portion”. clarity is needed.
Claim 1 in lines 7-8, recited the limitations “a plurality of segments each including a space surrounded by the rib, or a space surrounded by the rib and the frame portion are formed,” is indefinite, this language of the claim is not understood, the relation between the “a plurality of segments each including a space surrounded by the rib, or a space surrounded by the rib” and “the frame portion are formed” is not clear.
Claim 2 in line 1, recited the limitations “the segment“. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 in line 2, recited the limitations “the segment includes a first rib” is indefinite, it is unclear if the first rib is the same as the rib required by claim 1 recited as “a plurality of segments each … a space surrounded by the rib…“ or two different ribs, Applicant is referring to, clarity is needed.
Claim 2 in line 4 recited the limitations “a first direction” is indefinite, it is unclear if there is two different first directions or it is the same limitations recited in line 2.
Claim 3 in line 1, recited the limitations “the segment“. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 in line 3, recited the limitations “the bend portion“. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 in line 5, recited the limitations “the frame portion side“. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 in line 7, recited the limitations “the rib side“. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 in lines 1-5, recited the limitations “wherein the intermediate rib extends around corner portions of the die, and along the entire periphery including the front and back surfaces and the left and right surfaces of the frame portion, and on at least the front and back surfaces and the left and right surfaces of the frame portion except for the corner portions, the lateral concave portions are formed.” is indefinite, the formulation of the claim is not clear and understood.
Claim 5 in line 2, recited the limitations “the die“ is indefinite, it is unclear which of the die Applicant is referring to.
Claim 5 in line 2 recited the limitations “a segment” is indefinite, it is unclear if “a segment“ is part of the plurality of segment or new limitation.
Claim 5 as a whole is unclear.
Claim 6 in line 1, recited the limitations “the segment“. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 in line 4, recited the limitations “the bend portion“. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 in lines 4-5, recited the limitations “the bend portion“. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 in lines 5-6, recited the limitations “the bend portion is formed from a separate block different in material quality from a main body” is indefinite, it is unclear the quality is in term of malleability or different combination of materials.
Claim 9 in line 5, recited the limitations “the bend portion“. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 in line 3, recited the limitations “the upper die“. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 in lines 5-6 recited the limitations “a second direction crossing the first direction in plan view” is indefinite, this limitation is not understood, it is unclear how a direction crosses another direction.
Claim 12 in line 1, recited the limitations “the regular shape“. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 in line 1, recited the limitations “the first rib“. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 in line 2, recited the limitations “the plurality of honeycomb shaped segments“. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 in line 2, recited the limitations “the first direction“. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 in line 3, recited the limitations “the second direction“. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 in line 3, recited the limitations “the upper die“. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 in lines 5-6 recited the limitations “a second direction crossing the first direction in plan view” is indefinite, this limitation is not understood, it is unclear how a direction crosses another direction.
Claim 13, lines 27 and 28, recited the limitations “the arcuate portion” and “the arcuate portion”. Two arcuate portions are claimed thus making it unclear which arcuate portion is being claimed. Applicant should claim “a first arcuate portion” and “a second arcuate portion” to resolve the unclarity.
Claim 14 in lines 1-5, recited the limitations “wherein the intermediate rib extends around corner portions of the die, and along the entire periphery including the front and back surfaces and the left and right surfaces of the frame portion, and on at least the front and back surfaces and the left and right surfaces of the frame portion except for the corner portions, the lateral concave portions are formed.” is indefinite, the formulation of the claim is not clear and understood,
furthermore, Examiner notes the above listing of 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections are not conclusive, Applicant is required to review all the claims for compliance to 35 U.S.C. 112 so as to facilitate a clear understanding of the claimed invention and proper application of the prior art.
Claims not specifically recited are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Appropriate clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-4,6, 8-9 and 14-15 are rejected (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matlack et al. US Publication (2018/0345616) hereinafter Matlack in view of Yang CN Publication (109,013,898) hereinafter Yang.
Regarding claim 1,
Matlack discloses a pressing die (100 see fig.1-14) which is used for a pressing machine for a high- tensile metal plate for automobile bodies, comprising
a lower die (126) provided on a lower side in a height direction (see fig.2),
an upper die (124) provided on an upper side in the height direction (see fig.2), , and
a pressing mechanism (116) that moves the upper die (124) up and down (see para.[0025]),
wherein the die (124,126) includes a frame portion (fig.9 below discloses the frame of the lower die element 126, same interpretation is given to the upper die element 124), a processing surface portion (204,304 including all other surfaces (i.e. front, back and sides)), and a rib (the enclosure of the segment in fig.9 is considered to be the rib) crossing the processing surface portion (see fig.11-12 shown the rib crossing the processing surface portion),
PNG
media_image1.png
543
733
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of segments (see fig.2 and 9 above) each including a space (210,310) surrounded by the rib, or a space (see fig.9 above) surrounded by the rib and the frame portion are formed (see para.[0035] and [0045]),
an intermediate rib (see fig.9 above) is formed so as to extend along a periphery of front and back surfaces and left and right surfaces of the frame portion which form an outer peripheral surface (see frame portion) of the frame portion (see fig.9),
the intermediate rib forms lateral concave portions (see fig.9), and
the frame portion, the processing surface portion and the rib are continuously and integrally formed (see fig.2 and 9).
Matlack is silent about the intermediate rib forms lateral concave portions on upper and lower sides.
Matlack and Yang disclose both art in the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention (i.e. press die).
Yang, in a similar art, teaches a press die (fig.2) with an intermediate rib (8) forms lateral concave portions on upper and lower sides (see fig.2).
Yang teaches the intermediate rib to prevent easy deformation of the structure (see pag.2 line 49), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to construct the pressing die of Matlack with an intermediate rib as taught by Yang, as it would be beneficiary to Matlack to be able to prevent easy deformation of the structure and reducing on repairing time.
Regarding claim 2,
The prior art Matlack as modified by Yang discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Matlack discloses wherein the segment (see fig.9) includes a first rib (see fig.9) extending in a first direction (x) in plan view, and a plurality of second ribs crossing the first rib (see fig.9), and a first direction (x) in which the first rib extends coincides with a ridgeline direction of a bend portion of the processing surface portion (see fig.11-12).
Regarding claim 14,
The prior art Matlack as modified by Yang discloses all limitation of claim 2,
Matlack in view of Yang discloses wherein the intermediate rib (8, Yang) extends around corner portions of the die, and along the entire periphery including the front and back surfaces and the left and right surfaces of the frame portion (see fig.2, Yang), and on at least the front and back surfaces and the left and right surfaces of the frame portion except for the corner portions, the lateral concave portions are formed (see fig.2, Yang).
Regarding claim 3,
The prior art Matlack as modified by Yang discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Matlack discloses wherein the segment (see fig.9) includes a first rib (see fig.9) extending in a first direction (x) in plan view, and a plurality of second ribs crossing the first rib (see fig.9),
the first rib (see fig.9) is along the bend portion (see fig.11-12) of the processing surface portion, and
a curvature radius on the frame portion side (see fig.11-12) where a corner along the first direction (x) in which the frame portion and the processing surface portion are connected is an arcuate portion (see fig.11-12) is larger than a curvature radius on the rib side where a corner along the first direction in which the rib and the processing surface portion are connected is an arcuate portion(see fig.9 and 11-12).
Regarding claim 15,
The prior art Matlack as modified by Yang discloses all limitation of claim 3,
Matlack in view of Yang discloses wherein the intermediate rib (8, Yang) extends around corner portions of the die, and along the entire periphery including the front and back surfaces and the left and right surfaces of the frame portion (see fig.2, Yang), and on at least the front and back surfaces and the left and right surfaces of the frame portion except for the corner portions, the lateral concave portions are formed (see fig.2, Yang).
Regarding claim 4,
The prior art Matlack as modified by Yang discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Matlack in view of Yang discloses wherein the intermediate rib (8, Yang) extends around corner portions of the die, and along the entire periphery including the front and back surfaces and the left and right surfaces of the frame portion (see fig.2, Yang), and on at least the front and back surfaces and the left and right surfaces of the frame portion except for the corner portions, the lateral concave portions are formed (see fig.2, Yang).
Regarding claim 6,
The prior art Matlack as modified by Yang discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Matlack discloses wherein the segment (see fig.9) includes a first rib (see fig.9) extending in a first direction (x) in plan view, and a plurality of second ribs crossing the first rib (see fig.9),
the first rib (see fig.9) is along the bend portion (see fig.11-12) of the processing surface portion, and
a third rib is formed in the other die (124) so as to correspond to the first rib (the first rib is shown in fig.9 of die 126, the third rib is the same as the first rid but of die 124 since die 124 and 126 as similar ribs see fig 2).
Regarding claim 8,
The prior art Matlack as modified by Yang discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Matlack discloses wherein the segment (see fig.9) includes a first rib (see fig.9) extending in a first direction (x) in plan view, and a plurality of second ribs crossing the first rib (see fig.9),
the first rib (see fig.9) is along the bend portion (see fig.11-12) of the processing surface portion, and
the bend portion is formed from a separate block different in material quality from a main body.
Regarding claim 9,
The prior art Matlack as modified by Yang discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Matlack discloses wherein the segment (see fig.9) includes a first rib (see fig.9) extending in a first direction (x) in plan view, and a plurality of second ribs crossing the first rib (see fig.9), the segment further includes a reinforcing rib, and the reinforcing rib is along the ridgeline of the bend portion of the processing surface portion in plan view, and is formed for reinforcing with respect to the first rib and the second ribs which form the segment (see fig.9 and 11-12).
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.
Claims 5,7,10 and 12 are rejected (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matlack in view of Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Li CN. Publication (107,952,879) hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 5,
The prior art Matlack as modified by Yang discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Neither Matlack nor Yang discloses wherein at least one segment having a honeycomb shape is formed at a center portion of the die in plan view, and a segment having a shape different from a honeycomb shape is formed at the peripheral portion of the die in plan view.
Matlack and Li disclose both art in the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention (i.e. press die).
Li, in a similar art, teaches a press die (fig.2) with at least one segment having a honeycomb shape (see fig.1-2) is formed at a center portion of the die (see fig.1) in plan view, and a segment (see fig.3) having a shape different from a honeycomb shape is formed at the peripheral portion of the die in plan view (see fig.3, the top portion of the die is considered to be a segment and the bottom portion is considered to be another segment).
Li teaches the different shaped segments to reinforce the structure part of the material being produced (see pag.1 lines 10-11), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to construct the pressing die of Matlack with different shaped segments as taught by Li, as it would be beneficiary to Matlack to be able to reinforce the structure part of the material being produced and improve production.
Regarding claim 7,
The prior art Matlack as modified by Yang discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Neither Matlack nor Yang discloses at least one of the segments has a honeycomb shape in plan view.
Li, in the similar art, teaches a press die (fig.2) with at least one segment having a honeycomb shape (see fig.2) in plan view.
Li teaches the honeycomb shaped segment to reinforce the structure part of the material being produced (see pag.1 lines 10-11), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to construct the pressing die of Matlack with honeycomb shaped segment as taught by Li, as it would be beneficiary to Matlack to be able to reinforce the structure part of the material being produced and improve production.
Regarding claim 10,
The prior art Matlack as modified by Yang discloses all limitation of claim 9,
Neither Matlack nor Yang discloses wherein at least one of the segments formed by the first rib and the second ribs has a honeycomb shape in plan view.
Li, in the similar art, teaches a press die (fig.2) with at least one of the segments formed by a first rib and second ribs has a honeycomb shape (see fig.2) in plan view.
Li teaches the honeycomb shaped segment to reinforce the structure part of the material being produced (see pag.1 lines 10-11), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to construct the pressing die of Matlack with at least one of the segments to be formed by a first rib and second ribs to have a honeycomb shape as taught by Li, as it would be beneficiary to Matlack to be able to reinforce the structure part of the material being produced and improve production.
Regarding claim 12,
The prior art Matlack as modified by Yang discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Matlack discloses the first rib divides the regular shape arranged in the first direction adjacently to each other in the second direction (see fig.9) in plan view.
Matlack is silent about the regular shape is a honeycomb shape.
Matlack and Li disclose both art in the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention (i.e. press die).
Li, in a similar art, teaches a press die (fig.2) with a regular shape is a honeycomb shape (see fig.2).
Li teaches the honeycomb shaped segment to reinforce the structure part of the material being produced (see pag.1 lines 10-11), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to construct the pressing die of Matlack with at least one of the segments to be formed by a first rib and second ribs to have a honeycomb shape as taught by Li, as it would be beneficiary to Matlack to be able to reinforce the structure part of the material being produced and improve production.
Claim 11 is rejected (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matlack et al. US Publication (2018/0345616) hereinafter Matlack in view of Li CN. Publication (107,952,879) hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 11,
Matlack discloses a pressing die (100 see fig.1-14) which is used for a pressing machine for a high- tensile metal plate for automobile bodies, comprising
a lower die (126) provided on a lower side in a height direction (see fig.2),
the upper die (124) provided on an upper side in the height direction (see fig.2), , and
a pressing mechanism (116) that moves the upper die (124) up and down (see para.[0025]),
wherein the upper die (124) has a first direction (x) and a second direction (y) crossing the first direction in plan view, and includes integrally a surrounding frame portion (fig.9 of claim 1, discloses the frame of the lower die element 126, same interpretation is given to the upper die element 124, see both dies in fig.2 for similarity),
a processing surface portion (204,304 including all other surfaces (i.e. front, back and sides) better see fig.11-12), and
a rib (the enclosure of a segment in fig.9 is considered to be the rib) positioned in the frame portion crossing the processing surface portion (see fig.11-12 shown the rib crossing the processing surface portion),
a plurality of segments (see fig.2 and 9 each square are segments) each including a space (see fig.9) surrounded by the rib, or a space surrounded by the rib and the frame portion are formed,
the plurality of the segments (see fig.2 and 9) are arranged adjacently to each other in the first direction, and arranged adjacently to each other in the second direction to form a regular shape (see fig.9) in plan view,
a first rib (312,314) different from said rib extends in the first direction (x) and separate the plurality of segments arranged adjacently in the first direction (x) from each other, the first rib divides the regular shape of the plurality of segments arranged in the first direction (x) adjacently to each other in the second direction (y),
the first rib (312,314) extends along a curved portion of L shaped bending performed by the pressing machine, on the processing surface portion (see fig.11-12), and
Matlack is silent about the regular shape is a honeycomb shape.
Matlack and Li disclose both art in the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention (i.e. press die).
Li, in a similar art, teaches a press die (fig.2) with a regular shape is a honeycomb shape (see fig.2).
Li teaches the honeycomb shaped segment to reinforce the structure part of the material being produced (see pag.1 lines 10-11 and pag. 4 line 48), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to construct the pressing die of Matlack with at least one of the segments to be formed by a first rib and second ribs to have a honeycomb shape as taught by Li, as it would be beneficiary to Matlack to be able to reinforce the structure part of the material being produced and improve production.
Claim 13 is are rejected (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matlack et al. US Publication (2018/0345616) hereinafter Matlack in view of Zhao CN. Publication (112,453,164) hereinafter Zhao.
Regarding claim 13,
Matlack discloses a pressing upper die (100 see fig.1-14) which is used for a pressing machine for a metal plate, the pressing machine comprising
a lower die (126) provided on a lower side in a height direction (see fig.2),
the upper die (124) provided on an upper side in the height direction (see fig.2), , and
a pressing mechanism (116) that moves the upper die (124) up and down (see para.[0025]),
wherein the upper die (124) has a first direction (x) and a second direction (y) crossing the first direction in plan view, and includes integrally a surrounding frame portion (fig.9 of claim 1, discloses the frame of the lower die element 126, same interpretation is given to the upper die element 124, see both dies in fig.2 for similarity),
a processing surface portion (204,304 including all other surfaces (i.e. front, back and sides) better see fig.11-12), and
a rib (the enclosure of a segment in fig.9 is considered to be the rib) positioned in the frame portion crossing the processing surface portion (see fig.11-12 shown the rib crossing the processing surface portion),
a plurality of segments (see fig.2 and 9 each square are segments) each including a space (see fig.9) surrounded by the rib, or a space surrounded by the rib and the frame portion are formed,
the plurality of the segments (see fig.2 and 9) are arranged adjacently to each other in the first direction, and arranged adjacently to each other in the second direction to form a regular shape (see fig.9) in plan view,
a first rib (312) different from said rib extends in the first direction (x) and separate the plurality of segments arranged adjacently in the first direction (x) from each other, the first rib divides the regular shape of the plurality of segments arranged in the first direction (x) adjacently to each other in the second direction (y),
the first rib (312) extends along a curved portion of L shaped bending performed by the pressing machine, on the processing surface portion (see fig.11-12),
the segment comprises the first rib (312) and a plurality of second ribs (314) crossing the first rib,
Matlack is silent about a corner along the first direction in which the frame portion and the processing surface portion are connected, forms an arcuate portion having a center of curvature inside a concave portion surrounded by the first rib and the frame portion, a corner along the first direction on a central side of the die, in which the first rib and the processing surface portion are connected, forms an arcuate portion having a center of curvature inside a concave portion surrounded by the first rib and the second rib, and a curvature radius of the arcuate portion is larger than a curvature radius of the arcuate portion.
Matlack and Zhao disclose both art in the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention (i.e. press die).
PNG
media_image2.png
326
621
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Zhao, in a similar art, teaches a press die (fig.1) with a corner along the first direction in which the frame portion and the processing surface portion (3) are connected, forms an arcuate portion having a center of curvature inside a concave portion surrounded by the first rib and the frame portion (see fig.3 above), a corner along the first direction on a central side of the die, in which the first rib and the processing surface portion are connected, forms an arcuate portion having a center of curvature inside a concave portion surrounded by the first rib and the second rib, (see fig.3 above) and a curvature radius of the arcuate portion is larger than a curvature radius of the arcuate portion (see fig.3 above).
Zhao teaches the curvature and acuate portion to reinforce the structure and avoid the material wrinkling and cracking in the forming process (see Abstract), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to construct the pressing die of Matlack with the curvature and acuate portion as taught by Zhao, as it would be beneficiary to Matlack to be able to reinforce the structure and avoid the material wrinkling and cracking in the forming process and improve production.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Smith O. BAPTHELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-5976. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-6:00.
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 L. 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.
February 26, 2026
/BSO/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725