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 filed May 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination of Yasuo and Fowler not proper since “the lifters of Yasuo and the magnetic element of Fowler differ in purpose, function and point of application”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the lifters of Yasuo lift the plate during plate feeding while the magnet element of Fowler lift the plate after completion of press working thus they are used for different functions. However, Fowler uses the magnet element to clear the plate from the lower die to allow for feeding of the plate out of the press station. Additionally it is noted that the feeding of the plate in Yasuo encompasses feeding the plate upon completion of press working since the plate is progressively moved along the molds, i.e. feeding from one station to the next would occur after completion of a press working operation. Therefore the lifters of Yasuo and the magnet element of Fowler do indeed perform the same function and have the same purpose. Therefore the substitution of the lifters with the magnet element would result in the predictable result of lifting the plate even when the plate has a low rigidity to clear the die hole and allow for unobstructed feeding/removal of the plate to the next station.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuo et al (JP2003200296; cited by Applicant) in view of Fowler et al (US 2,976,753).
In reference to claim 1, Yasuo discloses a progressive press metal mold comprising
a lower mold (11) including a die having a plurality of die holes (21-25) corresponding to shapes formed by pressing [see paragraph 0022],
an upper mold (12) including punches corresponding to the respective die holes (21-25), the upper mold capable of approaching and moving away from the lower mold, the punches and the corresponding die holes forming a plurality of processing stages (S1-S5) where a belt-shaped metal material is transported sequentially to perform predetermined pressing on the belt-shaped metal material with the punches and die holes in the respective processing stages [see paragraph 0022; figures 1-3].
Yasuo further discloses a plurality of lifter components (311 to 357) disposed on the lower mold and surrounding each die hole to lift the metal material a predetermined distance from the die wherein the lifters at the final stage (S5) is designed to lift the material higher than the previous stages (S1-S4) to prevent bending of the metal material or the metal material getting caught in the die hole [see paragraphs 0006 & 0029].
Yasuo discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein a magnetic element is disposed in a specific processing stage to attract the metal material to be transported.
However, Fowler et al teaches of a press mold having a magnetic element (42) disposed in an upper mold (26) to attract the metal material to the upper mold when lifted from a lower mold (22) upon completion of a pressing operation [see figure 2, col. 2 lines 19-35].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the lifters of the final stage (S5) of Yasuo with the magnetic lifter element, as taught by Fowler et al, since such a substitution would allow for the clearance of the metal material and prevent bending and catching within the die hole.
In reference to claim 2, Fowler et al further teaches the magnetic element is formed by an electromagnet that generates magnetic force, when energized, and attracts, by the magnetic force, the blet shaped metal material by being energized at a predetermined timing [see col. 2 lines 53-57].
In reference to claim 3, the combination of Yasuo and Fowler et al further discloses the upper mold approaches the lower mold to press the belt shaped metal material with the punches and the die holes in the processing stages, and the upper mold moves away from the lower mold to transport the belt shaped metal material sequentially to the subsequent processing stages are performed repeatedly [see Yasuo paragraph 0022], and the magnetic element attracts the belt shaped metal material transported in the specific process stage by being energized only during the transporting [see Fowler et al col. 2 lines 19-35].
In reference to claim 4, the specific processing stage is capable of having a plurality of sheet materials punched from the belt shaped metal material be stacked to form an integrated multilayer component, and a processing stage before the specific processing stage is capable of having an adhesive applied to parts where the sheet materials are to be stacked in the specific processing stage. It is noted that these limitations are being treated as an intended use/function since they do not further provide any structural components but rather appear to recite method step and the claim is directed to an apparatus.
In reference to claim 5, Yasuo further discloses a lifter component (311-346), that holds up the belt shaped metal material at a predetermined distance from a surface of the die in the process of transporting the belt shaped metal material sequentially to the plurality of processing stages, is disposed on the lower mold [see paragraph 0024-0029].
The combination of Yasuo and Fowler et al further discloses the lifter component (311-346) is not disposed in the specific processing stage.
In reference to claim 6, the progressive press metal mold is a rotor or stator of a motor [see paragraph 0046].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Debra Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)272-1904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4:30pm EST.
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, Chris Templeton can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Debra M Sullivan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights