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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of invention I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on June 25, 2026 is acknowledged. In view of Applicant’s cancelation of claims 14-20, the restriction requirement is now moot.
Response to Amendment
This Final Rejection is in response to the Amendment dated June 25, 2026 filed in response to the Non-final Rejection dated March 27, 2026.
Cancelation of claims 14-20 is acknowledged.
Addition of new claims 21-27 is acknowledged.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection in the previous Office action is maintained as explained below.
Response to Arguments
In the last full paragraph of page 12 of the Amendment, Applicant first argues Fritz does not disclose formblock 14 is a modular forming tool. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in numbered paragraph 9 in the previous Office action, column 3, line 53 through col. 4, line 23 discloses formblock 14 is capable of being used as an exchangeable forming component. That is, this disclosure discloses formblock 14 was constructed as a separate component, mounted on a press, with the press being a fixed support structure, and used as a forming component to form a metal blank. Formblock 14 is exchangeable in that it is constructed as a separate component that can be exchanged for another formblock.
Starting in the paragraph spanning from page 12 to 13, Applicant argues claim 1 requires the exchangeable forming component be a separate structure from the modular tool. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “A modular forming tool…, said modular forming tool comprising an exchangeable forming component”. Emphasis added. Claim 1 does not recite a modular forming tool separate from an exchangeable forming component. Claim 1 claims the exchangeable forming component is part of the modular forming tool such that the modular forming tool and the exchangeable forming component may be reasonably interpreted as the same thing.
In the paragraph at the top of page 14, Applicant argues Fritz fails to disclose an exchangeable forming component comprising a second surface as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fritz discloses formblock 14 is constructed as a separate component and used in a press to bend a metal sheet over it as shown in Fig. 6. The bottom and/or side surfaces of formblock 14 would have to at least “engage” the support structure, as was previously claimed, in order for formblock 14 to be used as disclosed. Further, Examiner takes the position Fritz also discloses the bottom and/or side surfaces of formblock 14 are configured to removably attached to the press because the bottom and/or side surfaces of formblock 14 are capable of being used as a second surface for removably attaching it to the press in an aligned position.
In the last full paragraph of page 15, Applicant argues the punch taught by Hielscher (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0018277 A1) is a totally different tool from a “prick punch" such that Hielscher does not teach the prick punch. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 3 does not include further structural and/or functional limitation as to what makes a “prick punch” a “prick punch” such that a punch such as taught be Hielscher may reasonably be interpreted as teaching a so called “prick punch”. Applicant is advocating limitations from the specification not claimed in the claim be unreasonably imported into the claim.
In the paragraph spanning from page 15 to 16, Applicant argues Magnuson fails to teach a prick punch system and thus cannot teach or suggest a pneumatic prick punch system as claimed. Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. Magnuson was not relied upon as teaching a prick punch system. Hielscher was relied upon for this teaching. Magnuson was cited as teaching it was known to use pneumatics in actuating a punch.
In the paragraph starting on page 16, Applicant argues Berliner fails to teach an analogous modular forming tool by advocating limitations from the specification not claimed in the claim be unreasonably imported into the claims such that the reference does not teach aspects of the claims. Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. While the claims are interpreted in view of the specification, limitations not claimed in the claims cannot not be imported into the claims from the specification.
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 1-2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,901,593 to Fritz, hereinafter “Fritz”.
Regarding claim 1, Fritz discloses a modular forming tool configured for removable mounting relative to a fixed support structure to form a sheet metal component (forming tool formblock 14 in Figs. 4-6 is configured for removable mounting relative to a press fixed support structure and is disclosed as forming sheet metal component 26a in Fig. 6; col. 3, line 53 through col. 4, line 23), said modular forming tool comprising an exchangeable forming component which is constructed using additive manufacturing (formblock 14 in Figs. 4-6 is an exchangeable forming component constructed using additive manufacturing);
wherein the exchangeable forming component comprises:
a first surface which is configured to provide an exchangeable forming surface shaped to form the sheet metal component into a desired shape during a stretch forming operation (The upper surface of formblock 14 is shown as a surface which forms sheet metal blank 26 in Fig. 5 to formed sheet 26a in Fig. 6. The added limitation “during a stretch forming operation” is intended use recitation in a manner which does not narrow the claim. See M.P.E.P. 2114,II. Fritz’s formblock 14 is capable of being used in a stretch forming operation.); and
a second surface which is configured to removably attach the exchangeable forming component to the fixed support structure in an aligned manner (the bottom and/or side surfaces of formblock 14 in Figs. 4-6 are a second surface capable of removably attaching the formblock to the press fixed support structure in an aligned position).
Regarding claim 2, Fritz anticipates the modular forming tool of claim 1 as explained above. Fritz further discloses the exchangeable forming component is 3D printed out of a polymer material. Column 4, line 4-14 discloses formblock 14 was 3D printed out of photopolymer epoxy resin.
Regarding claim 12, Fritz discloses an exchangeable forming component configured for removable mounting relative to a fixed interface block of a modular forming tool (formblock 14 in Figs. 4-6 is disclosed as an exchangeable forming component capable of being removably mounted to an interface block of a rubber pad forming hydropress modular forming tool disclosed at col. 4, line 4-23), said exchangeable forming component comprising a structure which is constructed using additive manufacturing (component structure formblock 14 in Figs. 4-6 is constructed using additive manufacturing), and wherein:
the exchangeable forming component is configured for forming a sheet metal component into a desired shape during a stretch forming operation (Formblock 14 is capable of being used to form a sheet metal component as shown in Fig. 6. The limitation “during a stretch forming operation” is recitation of intended use in a manner which does not narrow the claim. See M.P.E.P. 2114,II. Fritz’s formblock 14 is capable of being used in a stretch forming operation.);
the fixed interface block is fixedly connected to a non-moving support structure (This limitation is also recitation of how the claimed exchangeable forming component is intended to be used in that it does not limit the exchangeable forming component. It limits the structure to which the exchangeable forming component is intended to be removably mounted.); and
the exchangeable forming component comprises:
a first surface which is configured to provide an exchangeable forming surface shaped to form the sheet metal component (the upper surface of formblock 14 is shown as a surface which forms sheet metal blank 26 in Fig. 5 to formed sheet 26a in Fig. 6); and
a second surface which is configured to removably attach the exchangeable forming component to the fixed interface block in an aligned position (the bottom and/or side surfaces of formblock 14 in Figs. 4-6 are a second surface capable of removably attaching the formblock to a fixed interface block of a press).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0018277 A1 by Hielscher, hereinafter “Hielscher”.
Regarding claim 3, Fritz anticipates the modular forming tool of claim 1 as explained above. However, Fritz does not disclose the exchangeable forming component comprises one or more bore holes intersecting the first surface and one or more prick punch systems operably located inside the one or more bore holes.
In the same field of forming metal sheets, Hielscher teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one or more bore holes (see “Bore Hole” annotation to Fig. 1 of Hielscher reproduced below) in the forming surface of an exchangeable forming component (forming component punch 9 and lower shaping die 3 in Figs. 1-6 are shown as separate parts of apparatus 1 such that they may be exchanged with other forming component of differing shape; ¶[0017] and [0018]) with one or more prick punch systems operably located inside the one or more bore holes (prick punch system secondary punch 90 in Fig. 1 is located inside the Bore Hole as annotated below; ¶[0019]).
PNG
media_image1.png
1048
1010
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a punch system into Fritz’s exchangeable forming component in the same way Hielscher teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Hielscher to the exchangeable forming component of Fritz would achieve the predictable result of Fritz’s exchangeable forming component with a punch system incorporated therein.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz in view of Hielscher and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,631,996 to Magnuson, hereinafter “Magnuson”.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art reference combination of Fritz in view of Hielscher renders the modular forming tool of claim 3 unpatentable as explained above. However, Hielscher is silent regarding the type of energy source used to actuate actuator 16 in Fig. 1. See paragraph [0019] of Hielscher.
In the same field of punch actuators, Magnuson teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use pneumatic actuation to actuate a punch of a punch press. See column 1, line 22-24.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use pneumatic actuation in actuating Hielscher’s punch system in the same way Magnuson teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Magnuson to the punch system of Hielscher would achieve the predictable result of a pneumatically-actuated punch system used with Fritz’s disclosed exchangeable forming component.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-11, 21-23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 2,279,965 to Berliner et al., hereinafter “Berliner”, in view of Fritz.
Regarding claim 1, Berliner discloses a modular forming tool (modular forming tool comprising platform 28 with exchangeable forming component 24 mounted thereon; page 1, column 2, line 32-36) configured for removable mounting relative to a fixed support structure to form a sheet metal component (platform 28 with form 24 in Fig. 1 is shown mounted on plunger 20 relative to fixed support structure beam 10), said modular forming tool comprising an exchangeable forming component (form 24 is an exchangeable forming component as disclosed at page 1, column 2, line 32-39);
wherein the exchangeable forming component comprises:
a first surface which is configured to provide an exchangeable forming surface shaped to form the sheet metal component into a desired shape during a stretch forming operation (the outer surface of form 24 in Fig. 1 is a first surface which provides an exchangeable forming surface shaped to form metal sheet 32 during a stretch forming operation); and
a second surface which is configured to removably attach the exchangeable forming component to the fixed support structure in an aligned position (the flat bottom surface of form 24 in Fig. 1 is a second surface removably attaching form 24 to fixed support structure beam 10 and aligns form 24 by its mated attachment to platform 28).
Berliner does not disclose the exchangeable forming component is constructed using additive manufacturing.
In the same field of sheet metal forming, Fritz teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct a forming component using additive manufacturing. See column 3, line 53 through column 4, line 23.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct Berliner’s exchangeable forming component form 24 using additive manufacturing in the same way Fritz teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Fritz to Berliner would yield the predictable result of using additive manufacturing to construct Berliner’s form 24.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art reference combination of Berliner in view of Fritz renders the modular forming tool of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Berliner further discloses comprising:
an interface block configured to provide at least part of the support structure (interface block head 22 in Fig. 1), wherein the interface block comprises:
a third surface, configured to removably mate with the second surface of the exchangeable forming component (see “Third Surface” annotation to Fig. 1 of Berliner reproduced below); and
a fourth surface (see “Fourth Surface” annotation below); and
an attachment element for attaching the exchangeable forming component to the interface block, when the second surface is mated to the third surface (an attachment element, see “Attachment Element” annotation below, on head 22 attaches exchangeable forming component form 24 to interface block head 22 when the Second Surface of form 24 is mated with the Third Surface).
PNG
media_image2.png
612
1205
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, the prior art reference combination of Berliner in view of Fritz renders the modular forming tool of claim 5 unpatentable as explained above. Berliner further discloses:
a baseplate configured to be affixed to a forming machine (Forming machine plunger 20 in Fig. 1 has a base plate affixed thereto. See “Base Plate” annotation to Fig. 1 of Berliner reproduced below.), wherein the baseplate comprises:
a fifth surface, configured to mate with the fourth surface of the interface block (the upper surface of the Base Plate is a fifth surface which mates to the Fourth Surface of interface block head 22 as annotated in the rejection of claim 5 above); and
a second attachment element, configured to mount the baseplate to the interface block when the fourth surface is mated with the fifth surface (see “Second Attachment Element” annotation below).
PNG
media_image3.png
670
901
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, the prior art reference combination of Berliner in view of Fritz renders the modular forming tool of claim 6 unpatentable as explained above. Fritz further discloses the exchangeable forming surface is 3D printed out of a polymer material. Column 4, line 4-14 discloses formblock 14 was 3D printed out of photopolymer epoxy resin.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art reference combination of Fritz in view of Berliner renders the modular forming tool of claim 6 unpatentable as explained above. Berliner further teaches
the second surface and the third surface cooperate with each other to be self-aligning when mated together (the Attachment Element as annotated in the rejection of claim 5 above self-aligns the Second Surface and the Third Surface when the two are mated together), such that:
the exchangeable forming surface and interface block are aligned with one another (Fig. 1 shows the First Surface exchangeable forming surface is aligned with interface block head 22); and
deformation of the exchangeable forming surface during operation is restricted (deformation of the forming surface is restricted due to proper alignment of form 24 with clamps 14).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art reference combination of Fritz in view of Berliner renders the modular forming tool of claim 9 unpatentable as explained above. Berliner further teaches
a plurality of additional exchangeable forming components (col. 2, line 32-39 teach form 24 shown in Fig. 1 may be exchanged with other forms having differing transverse section than the one shown in the drawing);
wherein each of the plurality of additional exchangeable forming components has a respective alignment surface which is identical in shape to the second surface of the exchangeable forming component (each of the other forms having differing transverse section than the one shown in Fig. 1 would have the same alignment structure shown in Fig. 1 which aligns into the Alignment Surface of head 22 as annotated in the rejection of claim 5 above);
wherein each of the respective alignment surfaces, of the plurality of additional exchangeable forming components, is compatible for mating with the third surface of the interface block (the alignment structure of all of the exchangeable forms 24 would be compatible for mating with the Third Surface of head 22).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art reference combination of Fritz in view of Berliner renders the modular forming tool of claim 10 unpatentable as explained above. Berliner further teaches the plurality of additional exchangeable forming components form a plurality of additional sheet metal component designs. Column 2, line 32-39 teach the other forms of differing transverse section are used to form sheet metal components corresponding to the transverse section of the other forms.
Regarding claim 21, Berliner discloses a method of forming sheet metal components using a modular forming tool (Fig. 1 shows forming sheet metal component 32 using the modular tool comprising platform 28 and form 24), the method comprising:
selecting a desired shape for a sheet metal component (page 1, col. 2, line 32-39 discloses selecting a generally curved-in-cross-section shape including a double curvature as shown in Fig. 1);
constructing an exchangeable forming component comprising (Fig. 1 shows exchangeable forming component form 24 is constructed):
a first surface which is configured to shape sheet metal component (the outer surface of form 24 in Fig. 1 is a first surface which provides an exchangeable forming surface shaped to form metal sheet 32 during a stretch forming operation); and
a second surface configured to removably attach the exchangeable forming component to a fixed support structure in an aligned position (the flat bottom surface of form 24 in Fig. 1 is a second surface removably attaching form 24 to fixed support structure beam 10 and aligns form 24 by its mated attachment to platform 28);
mounting the exchangeable forming component to the fixed support structure (exchangeable forming component form 24 is mounted to fixed support structure beam 10 in Fig. 1);
stretch forming sheet metal over the first surface of the exchangeable forming component, such that one or more sheet metal components are formed in the desired shape (page 1, col. 2, line 40 through page 2, line 16 discloses sheet metal 32 in Fig. 1 is stretch formed over the outer surface of form 24 to form the desired shape).
Berliner does not disclose using additive manufacturing techniques to construct exchangeable forming component form 24 in Fig. 1.
In the same field of sheet metal forming, Fritz teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct a forming component using additive manufacturing. See column 3, line 53 through column 4, line 23.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct Berliner’s exchangeable forming component form 24 using additive manufacturing in the same way Fritz teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Fritz to Berliner would yield the predictable result of using additive manufacturing to construct Berliner’s form 24.
Regarding claim 22, the prior art reference combination of Berliner in view of Fritz renders the method of claim 21 unpatentable as explained above. Fritz further teaches the exchangeable forming component is 3D printed out of a polymer material. Column 4, line 4-14 discloses formblock 14 was 3D printed out of photopolymer epoxy resin.
Regarding claim 23, the prior art reference combination of Berliner in view of Fritz renders the method of claim 21 unpatentable as explained above. Column 4, line 24-41 of Fritz further teaches:
constructing the first surface of the exchangeable forming component to a near-net state using additive manufacturing (col. 4, line 24-41 teaches constructing exchangeable forming components to near-net shape using stereolithography); and
using subtractive manufacturing to modify the first surface of the exchangeable forming component from the near-net state to a final state (col. 4, line 24-41 teaches cleaning and finishing of the exchangeable forming components as subtractive manufacturing to modify the forming surface of the components from the near-net state to a final stated used to form sheet metal components).
Regarding claim 25, the prior art reference combination of Berliner in view of Fritz renders the method of claim 21 unpatentable as explained above. Berliner further discloses assembling the modular forming tool, comprising:
mounting the exchangeable forming component to a fixed interface block by mating the second surface with a third surface on the fixed interface block (Fig. 1 shows exchangeable forming component form 24 is mounted to fixed interface block head 22 by mating the Second Surface, see annotated figure in the rejection of claim 5 above, with the Third Surface, see annotation, on fixed interface block head 22);
mounting the fixed interface block to the fixed support structure by mating a fourth surface located on the interface block to a fifth surface located on the fixed support structure (Fig. 1 shows fixed interface block head 22 is fixed to fixed support structure beam 10); and
affixing the support structure to a forming machine, wherein the forming machine is configured to form sheet metal components over the first surface of the exchangeable forming component (fixed support structure beam 10 in Fig. 1 is affixed to forming machine plunger 20);
wherein the fixed support structure is a fixed baseplate (beam 10 in Fig. 1 is a fixed baseplate).
Regarding claim 26, the prior art reference combination of Berliner in view of Fritz renders the method of claim 25 unpatentable as explained above. Berliner further discloses lowering the second surface of the exchangeable forming component onto the third surface of the interface block (the Second Surface of form 24, see the annotation in the rejection of claim 5 above, is shown lowered on to the Third Surface), such that the exchangeable forming component is aligned with the interface block (Fig. 1 shows exchangeable forming component form 24 is aligned with interface block head 22).
Regarding claim 27, the prior art reference combination of Berliner in view of Fritz renders the method of claim 26 unpatentable as explained above. Berliner further discloses:
constructing a plurality of exchangeable forming components having different sizes, first surface shapes, or both, and which are all compatible for mounting with the interface block (page 1, col. 2, line 36-39 discloses constructing a plurality of exchangeable forming component forms 24 in any desired shape may be constructed and made compatible with interface block head 22 in Fig. 1);
removing a first exchangeable forming component which forms a first sheet metal component (constructing forms 24 of any desired shape and using different forms 24 of differing shape with the metal forming machine shown in Fig. 1 involves removing a mounted form 24 and exchanging it for another form 24);
selecting a second exchangeable forming component from among the plurality of exchangeable forming components for mating with the interface block (when a different desired shape is desired, a different form 24 with a differing forming surface is selected for mating with interface block head 22 in Fig. 1);
forming a second sheet metal component with a different shape than the first sheet metal component (once the different form 24 is selected and mounted on interface block head 22 in Fig. 1, the metal forming machine is used to form a second sheet metal component with a different shape).
Claims 8 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz in view of Berliner and further in view of Hielscher.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art reference combination of Berliner in view of Fritz renders the modular forming tool of claim 6 unpatentable as explained above. However, neither Berliner nor Fritz teach an exchangeable forming component defining one or more bore holes intersecting the forming surface and one or more prick punching systems operably located inside the bore holes.
In the same field of forming metal sheets, Hielscher teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one or more bore holes (see “Bore Hole” annotation to Fig. 1 of Hielscher reproduced above) in the forming surface of an exchangeable forming component (forming component punch 9 and lower shaping die 3 in Figs. 1-6 are shown as separate parts of apparatus 1 such that they may be exchanged with other forming component of differing shape; ¶[0017] and [0018]) with one or more prick punch systems operably located inside the one or more bore holes (prick punch system secondary punch 90 in Fig. 1 is located inside the Bore Hole as annotated above; ¶[0019]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a punch system into Fritz’s exchangeable forming component in the same way Hielscher teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Hielscher to the exchangeable forming component of Fritz would achieve the predictable result of Fritz’s exchangeable forming component with a punch system incorporated therein.
Regarding claim 24, the prior art reference combination of Berliner in view of Fritz renders the method of claim 23, unpatentable as explained above. However, neither Berliner nor Fritz teach an exchangeable forming component defining one or more bore holes intersecting the forming surface and one or more prick punching systems operably mounted inside the bore holes.
In the same field of forming metal sheets, Hielscher teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one or more bore holes (see “Bore Hole” annotation to Fig. 1 of Hielscher reproduced above) in the forming surface of an exchangeable forming component (forming component punch 9 and lower shaping die 3 in Figs. 1-6 are shown as separate parts of apparatus 1 such that they may be exchanged with other forming component of differing shape; ¶[0017] and [0018]) with one or more prick punch systems operably located inside the one or more bore holes (prick punch system secondary punch 90 in Fig. 1 is located inside the Bore Hole as annotated above; ¶[0019]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount and use a punch system into Fritz’s exchangeable forming component in the same way Hielscher teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Hielscher to the exchangeable forming component of Fritz would achieve the predictable result of Fritz’s exchangeable forming component with a punch system incorporated therein.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz in view of Hielscher.
Regarding claim 13, Fritz anticipates the exchangeable forming component of claim 12 as explained above. However, Fritz does not disclose the exchangeable forming component defines one or more bore holes intersecting the first surface; and one or more prick punch systems operably located inside the one or more bore holes.
In the same field of forming metal sheets, Hielscher teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one or more bore holes (see “Bore Hole” annotation to Fig. 1 of Hielscher reproduced above) in the forming surface of an exchangeable forming component (forming component punch 9 and lower shaping die 3 in Figs. 1-6 are shown as separate parts of apparatus 1 such that they may be exchanged with other forming component of differing shape; ¶[0017] and [0018]) with one or more prick punch systems operably located inside the one or more bore holes (prick punch system secondary punch 90 in Fig. 1 is located inside the Bore Hole as annotated above; ¶[0019]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a punch system into Fritz’s exchangeable forming component in the same way Hielscher teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Hielscher to the exchangeable forming component of Fritz would achieve the predictable result of Fritz’s exchangeable forming component with a punch system incorporated therein.
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 28 September 2026
