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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of remarks, filed 06/25/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 and 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant argues in part, “Thus, the "target bending amount" in Okada is merely a reference value used for evaluating a bending result and determining whether an additional bending operation is required.
In contrast, amended claim 1 recites that "the ideal shape data is stored in a database and corresponds to a design model on which the manufacturing of the workpiece is based, and the design model is a design drawing". Accordingly, the claimed ideal shape data corresponds to a design model serving as the basis for manufacturing the workpiece, whereas Okada's target bending amount is a reference value used in a bending control process”
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Okada (US20220118496A1) in view of EGAMI (US20210339359A1) and further in view of Akami (US20030064871A1).
Claim Objections
Claim 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 13-15 includes the status identifier “(Canceled)”. However, the remarks filed on 06/25/2026 recites, “Claims 1-10 and 13-15”. Accordingly, the status identifier of claims 13-15 are being considered as typographical errors and are being considered as “(original)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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(s) 1-6 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (US20220118496A1) in view of EGAMI (US20210339359A1) and further in view of Akami (US20030064871A1)
Regarding claim 1,
Okada teaches, A shaping apparatus for shaping a workpiece, wherein the shaping apparatus comprises:
a controlling module; (¶0033 teaches control device)
a pressing module connected to the controlling module, wherein the pressing module comprises two pressing elements respectively applying load to a top surface and a bottom surface of the workpiece; (¶0017 teaches a press brake including a die 3, a punch 4)
a moving module connected to the controlling module, wherein the moving module comprises a moving platform and a workpiece carrier, (¶0018 teaches, The conveying mechanism 2 intermittently conveys the workpiece 90 in a conveying direction (work longitudinal direction). A specific configuration of the conveying mechanism 2 is not especially limited. The conveying mechanism 2 may be comprised by a conveyor, a robot including a hand at a tip of a robot arm, or the like)
a sensing module connected to the controlling module, wherein the sensing module is configured to perform a capturing process on the workpiece in the sensing zone to obtain a surface information about the workpiece; (¶0028 teaches, As one example, the sensor constituting the bending amount measuring device 8 is arranged downstream of the die 3 in the conveying direction. ¶0032 teaches As one example, the sensor constituting the bending amount measuring device 8 is arranged downstream of the die 3 in the conveying direction.
control the sensing module to perform a capturing process on the workpiece, (¶0042 teaches bending amount is measured by measuring device in step S5, ¶0037 teaches operation is carried out by the control device 9)
wherein, in response to the surface information being compared with an ideal shape data to obtain a shaping information about the workpiece by calculation, the controlling module is configured to control the pressing module to perform a shaping treatment on the surface of the workpiece according to the shaping information. (¶0043 teaches, In the measurement (S5) of the bending amounts, a shortage (differential value) of each measured bending amount from the target bending amount is also calculated. ¶0045 teaches, When it is determined that the measurement value of the bending amount is unsuccessful, the correcting step (S300) is executed. In the correcting step (S300), one of two types of operations is selected and executed in accordance with the degree of the unsuccessful value.)
wherein the ideal shape data is stored in a database (Okada in ¶0035 and Fig. 3 teaches a database that stores target bending amount in relation to different thickness of the material)
Okada doesn’t explicitly teach, the moving platform is configured to move the workpiece horizontally between a sensing zone and a processing zone, and the workpiece carrier is configured to clamp the workpiece and multi-axially move the workpiece; and (Egami in ¶0095 teaches, The stage 32 is movable on the surface plate 31 while the workpiece W being placed thereon under the control of the control apparatus 7. The stage 32 is movable relative to at least one of the surface plate 31, the processing apparatus 1 and the measurement apparatus 2. The stage 32 is movable along each of the X axis direction and the Y axis direction.)
wherein, the controlling module is configured to control the moving platform to move the workpiece to the sensing zone and…. is further configured to control the moving platform to move the workpiece to the processing zone; (Egami in ¶0095 teaches The stage 32 is movable under the control of the control apparatus 7. Also teaches stage 32 is movable relative to at least one of the surface plate 31, the processing apparatus 1 (processing zone) and the measurement apparatus 2 (sensing zone)
Egami is an art in the area of interest as it teaches, measurement apparatus that is disposed in the housing and that measures the object processed by the processing apparatus. A combination of Egami with Takeda would allow moving the workpiece from processing zone to a sensing zone. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Egami with Takeda. Moving workpiece from a processing zone to a measurement zone is known in the art as evident by Egami. One of ordinary skill in the art could modify the teachings of Okada with Egami to move the workpiece from processing zone and measurement zone because doing so would allow measuring workpiece without loading and unloading the workpiece which improves through put relating to the processing of the workpiece W, as taught by Egami in ¶0215.
Okada and Egami doesn’t explicitly teach, and corresponds to a design model on which the manufacturing of the workpiece is based, and the design model is a design drawing; (Okada in ¶0035 and Fig. 3 teaches a database that stores target bending amount. ¶0031 teaches bending amount comprises a bending angle of the workpiece. However it doesn’t explicitly teach, the bending amount corresponds to a design model on which the manufacturing of the workpiece is based, and the design model is a design drawing. Akami in ¶0245 teaches, retrieving bending angle from CAD data)
wherein an error of the surface information is analyzed in comparison to the design model according to at least one of surface undulation, deformation type, and deformation position of the workpiece. (Okada in ¶0060 teaches a comparison between target and measured bending amount at different position on the workpiece (i.e. first end portion, middle portion and second end portion). However it doesn’t teach the target bending amount is based on a design drawing. Akami in ¶0245 teaches, retrieving bending angle from CAD data)
Akami is an art in the area of interest as it relates to a bending press system. One of ordinary skill in the art could modify the teachings of Okada and Egami in view of Akami to include the ability to retrieve the bending angle (ideal shape) from a CAD data (design drawing). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Akami with Okada and Egami. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the system of Okada and Egami the ability to retrieve target bending angle from design drawing as taught by Akami since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2,
Okada, Egami and Akami teaches, The shaping apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sensing module is a three-dimensional contour capturer configured to capture a three-dimensional contour of the workpiece. (Okada in ¶0028 teaches The bending amount measuring device 8 includes a sensor that measures the bending amount of the workpiece 90.)
Regarding claim 3,
Okada, Egami and Akami teaches, The shaping apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the three-dimensional contour capturer is a light sensor configured to perform a non-contact type contour scanning process on the workpiece. (Okada in ¶0029 teaches, The bending amount measuring device 8 includes a single sensor and a scanning mechanism (scanning device) that moves the sensor in the die longitudinal direction. The single sensor scans the workpiece 90 to suitably measure the bending amounts of the portions of the workpieces 90.)
Regarding claim 4,
Okada, Egami and Akami teaches, The shaping apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the three-dimensional contour capturer is a probe configured to performs a contact type contour capturing process on the workpiece. (Okada in ¶0030 teaches, sensor can be a contact type sensor and also teaches, “When using the contact sensor, it is preferable to measure the bending amount by bringing a probe into contact with the workpiece 90 from a lower side or an upper side”)
Regarding claim 5,
Okada, Egami and Akami teaches, The shaping apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the light sensor is a structured light sensor or a laser light sensor. (Okada in ¶0030 teaches, sensor can be a laser sensor and also teaches, “When using the laser sensor and the line laser sensor, it is preferable to measure the bending amount by laser irradiation from a lower side or lateral side of the workpiece 90”)
Regarding claim 6,
Okada, Egami and Akami teaches, The shaping apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the surface information comprises at least one of material, contour and surface undulation of the workpiece. (Okada in ¶0029 teaches sensor measures bending amount)
Regarding claim 13,
Okada, Egami and Akami teaches, The shaping apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the shaping information comprises at least one of shaping correction position of the workpiece, feed of the pressing module, processing position of the pressing module, pressure value of the pressing module and speed of the pressing module. (Okada in ¶0048 teaches, the control device 9 refers to the database of the storage portion 9 a to acquire correction amounts of the stroke amount, the crowning amount, and the tilt amount in accordance with the shortage of the measured bending amount, i.e., a differential correction amount of the measured value of the first driver 7 a from the target value and a differential correction amount of the measured value of the second driver 7 b from the target value, and based on these, the control device 9 corrects the stroke amount, the crowning amount, and the tilt amount. ¶0034 teaches the stroke amount and tilt amount of the punch driver 7, i.e., the pressing amount of the punch 3 can be corrected especially in accordance the end bending amount)
Regarding claim 14,
Okada, Egami and Akami teaches, The shaping apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the pressing module is a fluid actuation module. (Okada in ¶
0021 teaches, the punch driver comprises a hydraulic cylinder)
Regarding claim 15,
Okada, Egami and Akami teaches, The shaping apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controlling module is configured to control the moving platform to move the workpiece to the sensing zone and (Egami in ¶0095 teaches The stage 32 is movable under the control of the control apparatus 7. Also teaches stage 32 is movable relative to at least one of the surface plate 31, the processing apparatus 1 (processing zone) and the measurement apparatus 2 (sensing zone))
control the sensing module to perform a capturing process on the workpiece, and (Okada in ¶0042 teaches bending amount is measured by measuring device in step S5, ¶0037 teaches operation is carried out by the control device 9)
the controlling module is configured to determine whether a shape-treated workpiece complies with an allowable error range. (Okada in ¶0043 teaches, In the measurement (S5) of the bending amounts, a shortage (differential value) of each measured bending amount from the target bending amount is also calculated. ¶0045 teaches, When it is determined that the measurement value of the bending amount is unsuccessful, the correcting step (S300) is executed. In the correcting step (S300), one of two types of operations is selected and executed in accordance with the degree of the unsuccessful value.)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (US20220118496A1) in view of EGAMI (US20210339359A1) and further in view of Akami (US20030064871A1) and further in view of Takeda (US20170239705A1)
Regarding claim 7,
Okada and Egami doesn’t teach, The shaping apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controlling module is further configured to adjust a multi-axial movement between the workpiece carrier and the two pressing elements to perform a multi-axial machining process on the surface of the workpiece. (Takeda US20170239705A1 in ¶0093-¶0104 teaches moving the workpiece, the cross bar 71 and the grasping tools 81 in x-axis, y-axis and z-axis to perform multiaxial press machining)
Takeda is an art in the area of interest as it teaches a workpiece conveying apparatus (see Abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art could modify the control device and conveying mechanism as taught by Okada and Egami to allow it to adjust a multi-axial movement between the workpiece carrier and the two pressing elements to perform a multi-axial machining process on the surface of the workpiece. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Takeda with Okada and Egami. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow the system to place workpiece on a die that is arranged obliquely which is often desired by manufacturers, as taught by Takeda in ¶0007 and ¶0095.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (US20220118496A1) in view of EGAMI (US20210339359A1) and further in view of Akami (US20030064871A1) and further in view of Takahashi (US20120069173A1)
Regarding claim 8,
Okada and Egami doesn’t teach, The shaping apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controlling module is further configured to set a sensing parameter of the sensing module, and the sensing parameter comprises at least one of a capturing number, a view range, and number of observation point of the sensing module. (Takahashi in the ¶0111-¶0113 teaches, setting image pickup number and timing. ¶0085 teaches, the image pickup frequency is set to the number of the teeth of the workpiece W, and thus when all the tooth portions W1 are subjected to image pickup at the same position, the image pickup operation can be automatically finished.)
Takahashi is an art in the area of interest as it teaches a workpiece inspecting apparatus. A combination of Takahashi with Okada and Egami would allow the system to set image pickup number. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Takahashi with Okada and Egami. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Takahashi with Okada and Egami. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would enhance detection precision of defect detection processing and the shortening of the total time required for the image pickup and the inspection as taught by Takahashi in ¶0112-¶0113.
Regarding claim 9,
Okada, Egami and Takahashi teaches, The shaping apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the controlling module sets the sensing parameter of the sensing module according to a classification number about the workpiece, and the classification number corresponds to a type of the workpiece. (Takahashi in the ¶0111-¶0113 teaches, setting image pickup number and timing based on reference pulse number. ¶0085 teaches, the image pickup frequency is set to the number of the teeth of the workpiece W, and thus when all the tooth portions W1 are subjected to image pickup at the same position, the image pickup operation can be automatically finished.)
Regarding claim 10,
Okada, Egami and Takahashi teaches, The shaping apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the workpiece has at least one blade, and the capturing number of the sensing module is determined according to number of the at least one blade. (Takahashi ¶0045 and Fig. 3 teaches a gearwheel with tooth)
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 ISTIAQUE AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-7087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 10AM -6PM and alternate Fridays.
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, Kenneth M Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/ISTIAQUE AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights