DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application and claims filed on March 8, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending, with claim 1 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. KR 10-2022-0102031 filed on 08/16/2022 and parent Application No. KR 10-2023-0104640 filed on 08/10/2023.
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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “10” and “410” has been used to designate both the same structure in figure 3A-B.
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, the “a position of the bottom dead center” of claims 10 and 15, “hole” of claims 11 and 12 and “radial blades” of claims 14 and 15, must be referenced and 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
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 9-12 and 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.
Claim 9 in lines 1-2, recited the limitations “a stripper between the die and the punch to pass through the punch if the punch reciprocates” is indefinite, it is unclear if the stripper pass through the punch or the other way around. For the purpose of examination, the interpretation will be “a stripper between the die and the punch, wherein the punch pass through the stripper if the punch reciprocates.“.
Claim 10 in lines 1-2, recited the limitations “a cross-section of a portion of the punch, which is inserted in the stripper” is indefinite, this limitation is not clear since the parent claim recited “a stripper between the die and the punch to pass through the punch” Clarity is needed.
Claim 10 in lines 1-3, recited the limitations “wherein a cross-section of a portion of the punch, which is inserted in the stripper, at a position of a bottom dead center is greater than that of the lower area.” is indefinite, the recitation of this claim is not understood. It is not clear if applicant meant “a portion of the punch inserted at a center of the stripper”. Clarity is needed.
Claim 12 in line 3, recited the limitations “wherein the hole of the stripper is inclined such that a size of the hole that is in contact with the punch is greater than that of the hole at an opposite side.” is indefinite, it is not clear how a hole is inclined? and how a hole is in contact with a structure? furthermore the hole of the opposite side of what? Clarity is needed.
Claim 12 in line 3, recited the limitations “the hole at an opposite side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 in line 2, recited the limitations “an area of a portion of the punch, which passes through the stripper, at a position of a bottom dead center” is indefinite, the recitation of this claim is not understood. It is not clear if applicant meant “a portion of the punch passes at a center through the stripper”. Clarity is needed.
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 1-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butcher et al. US Publication (2015/0059428) hereinafter Butcher in view of Hano et al. US Publication (2005/0029985) hereinafter Hano.
Regarding claim 1,
Butcher discloses an apparatus (10) for manufacturing a prismatic can, the apparatus comprising:
a die (16) configured to support a bar-shaped slug (3);
a punch (58) arranged on a horizontal axis of the die (16) to reciprocate in a left and right direction so as to press the slug supported on the die (see fig.2); and
a connecting rod (32) between a driver (14) configured to generate power and the punch to transmit the power generated by the driver to the punch,
Butcher is silent about wherein a cross-section of an edge of the punch in a direction of the die has a rectangular shape corresponding to a bottom surface of an impact can to be manufactured, and upper and lower areas of the punch are provided in an asymmetrical shape based on a horizontal axis center line.
Butcher and Hano disclose both art in the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention (i.e. Can processing apparatus).
PNG
media_image1.png
547
749
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hano, in a similar art, teaches a processing apparatus (fig.1) with a cross-section (see fig.11, the recitation of fig.11 is referring to fig.11 above) of an edge of the punch (28) in a direction of the die (24) has a rectangular shape (see fig.11) corresponding to a bottom surface of an impact can to be manufactured (see fig.1-13), and upper and lower areas (see fig.11) of the punch (see fig.11) are provided in an asymmetrical shape (asymmetric shape is shown in fig.8c) based on a horizontal axis center line (the center of element 28 in fig 10).
Hano teaches the different shape of the punch to allow sufficient pressure resisting strength while making the thickness as thin as possible (see para.[0004]), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to manufacture the punch of the apparatus of Butcher with the different shape of the punch as taught by Hano, as it would be beneficiary to Butcher to be able to allow sufficient pressure resisting strength while making the thickness as thin as possible as further improvement and render operation more efficient.
Examiner notes, reference Butcher discloses a round punch and also coupling with capability to change the punch see figures 10 and 14 and according to figure 10 of reference Hano, operation is in horizontal axis that determine the upper and lower areas of element 28.
Regarding claim 2,
The prior art Butcher as modified by Hano discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Butcher in view of Hano discloses the upper area (see fig.11 above, Hano) of the punch is constituted by a first pressing area (see fig.11 above going downward to the left, Hano) in the direction of the die and a first reinforcement area (see fig.11 above, Hano) in a direction of the connecting rod (see fig.11, Hano), and
the lower area (see fig.11 above, Hano) of the punch is constituted by a second pressing area (see fig.11 above going downward to the right, Hano) in the direction of the die and a second reinforcement area (see fig.11 above, Hano) in the direction of the connecting rod (see fig.11, Hano).
Examiner notes in figure 10 of reference Hano, the direction opposing the die element 24, is the direction of the connecting rod.
Regarding claim 3,
The prior art Butcher as modified by Hano discloses all limitation of claim 2,
Butcher in view of Hano discloses based on a longitudinal direction (see fig.10, Hano) of the punch (28, Hano), a length of the first pressing area is less than that of the second pressing area (see fig.11 above, Hano).
Regarding claim 4,
The prior art Butcher as modified by Hano discloses all limitation of claim 2,
Butcher in view of Hano discloses based on a longitudinal direction of the punch (28, Hano), a length of the first pressing area (see fig.11, Hano) corresponds to a height of a side surface extending from the bottom surface of the impact can (1, see fig.1A and 11 design of elements 28 and 1, also fig.13 shows the insertion, Hano).
Regarding claim 5,
The prior art Butcher as modified by Hano discloses all limitation of claim 2,
Butcher in view of Hano discloses a thickness of each of the first pressing area and the second pressing area (see fig.11, Hano) corresponds to a width of a short side of a side surface extending from the bottom surface of the impact can (1, see fig.1A and 11 design of elements 28 and 1, Hano).
Regarding claim 6,
The prior art Butcher as modified by Hano discloses all limitation of claim 2,
Butcher in view of Hano discloses based on a longitudinal direction of the punch (28, Hano), a width of the punch corresponds to a width of a long side of a side surface extending from the bottom surface of the impact can (1, see fig.1A and 11 design of elements 28 and 1, Hano).
Regarding claim 7,
The prior art Butcher as modified by Hano discloses all limitation of claim 2,
Butcher in view of Hano discloses wherein each of the first pressing area and the second pressing area (see fig.11, Hano) has a thickness less than that of each of the first reinforcement area and the second reinforcement area (see fig.11, Hano).
Regarding claim 8,
The prior art Butcher as modified by Hano discloses all limitation of claim 2,
Butcher in view of Hano discloses wherein the first pressing area and the first reinforcement area are connected to each other to be inclined in a tapered shape (see fig 11, Hano), and the second pressing area and the second reinforcement area are connected to each other to be inclined in a tapered shape (see fig 11, Hano).
Regarding claim 9, (as best understood)
The prior art Butcher as modified by Hano discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Butcher further discloses a stripper (46) between the die (16) and the punch (58) to pass through the punch if the punch reciprocates (see fig.3).
Regarding claim 10, (as best understood)
The prior art Butcher as modified by Hano discloses all limitation of claim 9,
Butcher in view of Hano discloses wherein a cross-section of a portion of the punch (58), which is inserted in the stripper (46), at a position of a bottom dead center is greater than that of the lower area (see fig.2-4).
Regarding claim 11,
The prior art Butcher as modified by Hano discloses all limitation of claim 9,
Butcher discloses wherein the stripper (46) has a hole to correspond to a shape of the cross-section through which the punch (58) passes (see Fig.2-3, element 12 of fig. 3 pass through element 46 and element 12 hold element 58 therefore the hole of element 46 is shape to allow the 58/12 to pass through).
Regarding claim 12, (as best understood)
The prior art Butcher as modified by Hano discloses all limitation of claim 11,
Butcher in view of Hano discloses wherein the hole of the stripper (46) is inclined such that a size of the hole that is in contact with the punch is greater than that of the hole at an opposite side (see fig.3).
Regarding claim 13,
The prior art Butcher as modified by Hano discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Butcher discloses a transfer part (42,44) between the die (16) and the punch (58) and configured such that the slug (3) is on a horizontal axis (56) of the die and the punch, and the impact can manufactured by the punch is withdrawn (element 42 redraw the can to the dies).
Regarding claim 16,
The prior art Butcher as modified by Hano discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Butcher in view of Hano discloses a punch holder (30,172, see fig.12, Butcher) configured to fix the punch (58, Butcher/28, Hano) ; a slide (160, Butcher) connected between the connecting rod (32, Butcher) and the punch holder (30,172, Butcher) to horizontally transmit power from the connecting rod (32, Butcher); and a slide guide (180, Butcher) configured to support horizontal movement of the slide (see fig.11-16, Butcher).
Regarding claim 17,
The prior art Butcher as modified by Hano discloses all limitation of claim 16,
Butcher discloses the punch holder (30,172, see fig.12) is mounted on the slide (160) such that a slide-side load application point (see fig.16) and a load center point of the punch (see fig.16) are on a same horizontal extension line (fig.16).
PNG
media_image2.png
280
749
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18,
The prior art Butcher as modified by Hano discloses all limitation of claim 16,
Butcher discloses the punch holder (30,172, see fig.12) is mounted on the slide (160) such that a slide-side load application point (see fig.16 above) is vertically below a horizontal extension line of the connecting rod axis (32, see fig 3, the rod is angled downward toward the dies) by an amount of eccentricity (see fig.3).
PNG
media_image3.png
420
741
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19,
The prior art Butcher as modified by Hano discloses all limitation of claim 18,
Butcher discloses wherein the amount of eccentricity is calculated based on a distance between the horizontal extension line of the connecting rod axis and a horizontal extension line of a load center point of the punch, based on the slide-side load application point (see fig. 3 and 16 above).
Regarding claim 20,
The prior art Butcher as modified by Hano discloses all limitation of claim 19,
Butcher discloses the amount of eccentricity (see fig.3 above) but is silent about an amount range of eccentricity to be of about 5 mm to about 25 mm.
Butcher clearly discloses the amount of eccentricity, however the scale of the drawings is not being relied upon for accurate measurements and since there is no criticality for the amount range of eccentricity to be of about 5 mm to about 25 mm therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have the amount range of eccentricity to be of about 5 mm to about 25 mm. Accordingly, it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butcher in view of Hano as applied to claim 13 above, and in further view of Maeda US. Patent (7,219,522) hereinafter Maeda.
Regarding claim 14,
The prior art Butcher as modified by Hano discloses all limitation of claim 13,
Butcher is silent about the transfer part comprises radial blades to rotate so as to transfer the slug and the impact can.
Butcher and Maeda disclose both art in the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention (i.e. Can processing apparatus).
Maeda, in a similar art, teaches a processing apparatus (fig.1) with a transfer part (15) comprises radial blades (28) to rotate so as to transfer the slug and the impact can (T, see fig.11-13).
Maeda teaches the transfer part comprises radial blades to rotate and transfer to properly handle the material (see col.1 line 50), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to manufacture the apparatus of Butcher with a transfer part to comprise radial blades to rotate and transfer as taught by Maeda, as it would be beneficiary to Butcher to be able to properly handle the material that is been processed and render operation more efficient.
Examiner notes that the blades recited in the claim, is to rotate and transfer therefore an equivalent structure is of the reference based on the function of rotate and transfer.
Regarding claim 15, (as best understood)
The prior art Butcher as modified by Hano and Maeda discloses all limitation of claim 14,
Butcher in view of Maeda discloses an area of a lower portion of the punch (58, Butcher), which passes through the stripper (46, Butcher), at a position of a bottom dead center has a thickness corresponding to a gap (fig.11-12, Maeda) between the blades (28, Maeda) so as not to interfere with the blades (no interference, the blade s are capable of moving outward to increase the gap, see col.10 lines 10-11, Maeda).
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.
March 4, 2026
/BSO/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725