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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/15/2025 with respect Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “the Mori and Aso references do not disclose the newly added limitations”.
In response to this argument, the Applicant is correct, however the Applicant’s specification is silent regrading “which is recessed”; The applicant has not set forth any criticality nor set forth an unexpected benefit for “which is recessed”; it appears that the Applicant relied only on the drawings for supporting the new limitations;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the desire shape of the upper flange ridgeline portion and lower flange ridgeline portion of Mori in view of Aso including the upper flange ridgeline portion which is recessed, as a matter of routine engineering design choice; in order to achieve the required shape of the product as desired.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US5921618A) in view of Aso (WO2016104376A1 attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Mori discloses a press-formed article (fig.8: (44)) (abstract and col.11 line 17-col.12 line 17) comprising:
a top sheet portion (fig.8: (44E));
a peripheral wall portion (fig.8: (44J, 44C, 44G)) formed along three peripheral edge portions (fig.8: peripheral edge portions of the element (44E)) of the top sheet portion and extending from the peripheral edge portions in a direction intersecting an extending direction of the top sheet portion (fig.8: (44E));
a floor flange portion (fig.8: (44B, 44D, 44A)) extending outward from an end portion of the peripheral wall portion (fig.8: (44J, 44C, 44G)) opposite to an end portion continuous with the top sheet portion (fig.8: (44E)) in a direction intersecting an extending direction of the peripheral wall portion (fig.8: (44J, 44C, 44G));
a side standing flange portion (fig.8: (44K)) extending outward from a circumferential end portion of the peripheral wall portion; and
PNG
media_image1.png
516
521
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an inclined flange portion (see fig.8 below) that is an inclined wall formed between the side standing flange portion (fig.8: (44K)) and the floor flange portion (fig.8: (44B, 44D, 44A));
Mori does not disclose which is a planar portion and continuous to the side standing flange portion via an upper flange ridgeline portion and continuous to the floor flange portion via a lower flange ridgeline portion.
Aso teaches a press-formed article (paragraphs 10-12) comprising:
a continuous inclined flange portion which is a planar portion, the continuous inclined flange portion having an upper flange ridgeline portion and a lower flange ridgeline portion (see figs.17A below).
PNG
media_image2.png
471
589
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Both of the prior arts of Mori and Aso are related to a press-formed article;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inclined flange portion of Mori to be a planar portion and have an upper flange ridgeline portion and a lower flange ridgeline portion as taught by Aso, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]. Thereby having the inclined flange portion, which a planar portion and continuous to the side standing flange portion via an upper flange ridgeline portion and continuous to the floor flange portion via a lower flange ridgeline portion.
Mori in view of Aso does not disclose “which is recessed”, however the Applicant’s specification is silent regrading “which is recessed”; The applicant has not set forth any criticality nor set forth an unexpected benefit for “which is recessed”; it appears that the Applicant relied only on the drawings for supporting “which is recessed”;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the desire shape of the upper flange ridgeline portion and lower flange ridgeline portion of Mori in view of Aso including the upper flange ridgeline portion which is recessed, as a matter of routine engineering design choice; in order to achieve the required shape of the product as desired.
Regarding claim 3, Mori in view of Aso does not disclose wherein a line length of the inclined flange portion in side view is from 10% to 70% of a distance between the top sheet portion and the floor flange portion.
Mori discloses a line length of the inclined flange portion (fig.8: the inclined portion between elements (44B) and (44K));
However, choosing the dimensions of the final product is known in art that depend on the general design and the required dimensions of the final product as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the dimensions of the press-formed article as desired, including wherein a line length of the inclined flange portion in side view is from 10% to 70% of a distance between the top sheet portion and the floor flange portion; in order to obtain a press-formed article with specific dimensions depending on the general design of the press-formed article so as to achieve a specific requirement as desired.
Therefore, the modification of Mori in view of Aso teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nakao (US20110016945A1) and Otsuka (US20150061323A1).
Nakao discloses a flange ridgeline portion which is recessed (fig.11).
Otsuka discloses a flange ridgeline portion which is recessed (fig.4B)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights