DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 4-29-2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that that a deep drawn part cannot be produced by another method and apparatus. This is not found persuasive because the product as claimed can be made by other methods and apparatus in sheet metal working such as incremental forming using a stylus or rolling ball to draw a sheet metal workpiece into a die and produce a drawn part.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Switzerland on 3-24-2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CH000327/2023 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 2-4 and 7-11 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.
Claims 2-4,7 and 10 claim “wave-like indentations and/or”, it is not clear what a scope of wave-like is since the term “like” does not adequately set forth a specified shape and the Examiner reads wave-like as any possible curved surface (wavy). The language “and/or” does not clearly set forth what is required by the claim and what is not, it should be amended to --and-- or --or--.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7,11 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frankenberg (3,695,201). Regarding claims 1 and 15, Frankenberg discloses a deep drawing device (Figs. 6 and 10) and method comprising a drawing punch (30) and a drawing die (31) having a drawing edge where a die wall (34) and a die face (32) of the drawing die (31) meet and interface as shown in Fig. 7 where (34) is pointing. The drawing edge (32,34; interface), sheet metal holder (28) and the die (31) define a flange feed zone of the deep drawing device. The deep drawing device operates in a working direction (vertically, Fig. 10; col. 5, lines 24-27) when the drawing punch (30) is actuated. The deep drawing device is constructed for the production of a thin-walled deep drawn part (110) comprising a wall (114; Fig. 13) inclined toward the working direction from a sheet metal blank (40). Frankenberg discloses that a plurality of wrinkle generation means (35) are provided along the drawing edge (32,34; col. 4, lines 38-40) of the drawing die (31; Figs. 7 and 10) wherein the wrinkle generation means (35) comprise a plurality of oblong, radially running recesses (grooves; 35; Fig. 7) positioned in the flange feed zone.
Regarding claim 2, the oblong, radially running recesses (35; Fig. 7) are on a surface of the drawing die (31) which faces the sheet metal holder (28) and extend up to the drawing edge (interface between 32,34).
Regarding claims 3-5, the oblong, radially running recesses (35) are evenly spaced from one another (Fig. 7) with at least five recesses across a wall segment with an enclosing angle of 90 degrees, wherein the recesses are arranged along an entire circumference of the flange feed zone on the face (32) of the die (31).
Regarding claim 6, the wrinkle generation means (35) are arranged at least in sections of the flange feed zone which are curved parallel to the working direction axially along the die throat comprising die wall (34) as illustrated in (Figs. 10 and 11; col. 4, line 41).
Regarding claim 7, an edge radius of the drawing edge variates since the recesses (35; Fig. 8) are a wave (curved) groove (Fig. 10) which varies in depth and width (Fig. 8) along the drawing edge (32,34; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 11, the oblong recesses (35) form a uniformly wavy surface (Fig. 8) wherein all the recesses are uniform along a circumference of the die (31).
Regarding claim 14, the drawn part (110) has a bottom (where 110 is pointing, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 16, the process is a single stage process (Fig. 10) using a drawing punch (30) and a drawing die (31).
Regarding claim 17, at least one forming stage (Fig. 6) compresses wrinkles by double sided tool contact between the die (31) on a bottom side of the blank (40) and the punch (30) and blank holder (28) contacting a top side of the blank.
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankenberg (3,695,201) in view of Hubball (6,968,724). Frankenberg does not explicitly recite a drawing edge radius of between 0.2-2.5 mm. Hubball teaches (col. 4, lines 35-38) that a drawing edge radius (R1) is 0.055-0.0080 inches (1.397-2.032 mm) for a blank thickness of 0.0088 inches or less. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the die drawing edge radius of Frankenberg to be between 0.2-2.5 mm as taught by Hubball in order to create a tight drawing radius while taking into account a workpiece blank thickness.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankenberg (3,695,201) in view of Hubball (6,968,724) and further in view of Hibbs et al. (2016/0129494). Frankenberg does not disclose that the wave (curved recesses, 35) form a uniform wavy line. Hibbs teaches that a drawing edge radius (R1; Fig. 5C) is comprised of different radii (R1,R2,R3, Fig. 5E; [0069], lines 6-10). The different radii (R1,R2,R3) are curved edges equally spaced around a circumference [0070]. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date to modify the drawing edge of the drawing die of Frankenberg to include different radii in order to produce a uniform curved (wavy) drawing edge radius as taught by Hibbs around a circumference of the drawing die.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankenberg (3,695,201) in view of Herten (4,386,514). Frankenberg does not explicitly recite that the wall is inclined at an angle between 5 and 15 degrees. Herten teaches a deep drawing device (Figs. 1a and 1b) comprising a drawing punch (3), a drawing die (1) and a blank holder (4) where the drawing die (1) has an angle between 3-60° (col. 3, lines 35-37). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the wall of the drawing die of Frankenberg to be inclined between 5-15 degrees as taught by Herten so as to form deep drawn parts which are conical. It is an obvious experimentation to experiment with die angles between 3-60 degrees as taught by Herten.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD THOMAS TOLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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 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.
/EDWARD T TOLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights