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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “a bottom clamp coupled to said at least one bottom clamp head” and “a bottom folding apron coupled to said bottom clamp” in claims 1 and 5 and “said material working surface is a top surface of said at least one bottom clamp head” in claims 3 and 7 as described in the specification. In particular, the figures that are supposed to show these features, e.g., Figs. 1 and 11, do not have lines sharp enough to distinguish these features or show how these features are coupled to each other. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 in abeyance.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “lifting tray assembly” in claims 1 and 5.
Regarding the lift tray assembly, the claims recite a generic placeholder (“lifting tray assembly” in claim 1 or “lifting tray” in claim 5) modified by a function (“being reciprocally movable between a lower position and a raised position elevating the sheet material”) that is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure will be interpreted as lifting tray assemblies 44 which are described as including a base 52 and pneumatic cylinder 54 (Figs. 2-3; Para. [0026]) and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 11,541,442 B2 to Kern.
Regarding claim 8, Kern teaches a method of operating a folding machine for folding a plurality of sheet metal materials (Abstract) comprising the steps of:
(A) loading a first sheet metal material 5 into a folding machine (Figs. 12-14; Col. 9, Lns. 18-42);
(B) indexing the first sheet metal material into a position for folding operation (Figs. 13-16; Col. 10, Lns. 39-54);
(C) commencing the folding operation on the first sheet metal material (Figs. 17-20; Col. 11, Lns. 16-34);
(D) loading a second sheet metal 5 material into the folding machine while simultaneously continuing the folding operation of the first sheet metal material 5 (Figs. 21-22; Col. 11, Lns. 35-44);
(E) completing the folding operation of the first sheet metal material (Figs. 17-20; Col. 11, Lns. 16-34);
(F) indexing the second sheet metal material into a position for folding operation (Figs. 21-22; Col. 11, Lns. 35-44), and
(G) commencing the folding operation of the second sheet metal material (Figs. 21-22; Col. 11, Lns. 35-44; Figs. 13-20 show that the sheet is folded after it has been transferred by unit 70).
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 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kern in view of JP 2014217851 A to Sakamoto.
Regarding claim 1, Kern teaches a folding machine for folding sheet metal material (Abstract), the folding machine comprising,
a frame (Figs. 2-9 and 13-15 show the frame, i.e., the portion that parts 2 and 3 are attached to);
at least one bottom clamp head 2 coupled to said frame (Figs. 2-9);
at least one top clamp head 3 coupled to said at least one bottom clamp head 2 (Figs. 1 and 13-15; Figs. 13-15 show the pivotal movement of the upper clamp head 3, and the upper clamp head 3 is pivotally coupled to the bottom clamp head 2 via the frame to which they are both pivotally coupled);
a bottom clamp 21 coupled to said at least one bottom clamp head 2 (Figs. 1-9; Col. 6, Lns. 28-49);
a top clamp 23 coupled to said at least one top clamp head 3 (Figs. 1-9; Col. 6, Lns. 28-49);
a bottom folding apron 22 coupled to said bottom clamp 21 (Figs. 1-9; Col. 6, Lns. 28-49; the bottom apron 22 is coupled to the bottom clamp 21 via the clamp head 2 that both are coupled to);
a top folding apron 24 coupled to said top clamp 23 (Figs. 1-9; Col. 6, Lns. 28-49; the top apron 24 is coupled to the top clamp 23 via the clamp head 3 that both are coupled to);
a material working surface configured to support a sheet metal material 5 thereon, said material working surface being positioned adjacent said bottom clamp 21 (Fig. 2; the material working surface is interpreted as the top of clamp head 2 which supports the sheet metal material by supporting the components, e.g., table 10, that the sheet metal material is placed on); and
a side loader assembly 70 positioned between said bottom clamp head 2 and said top clamp head 3 (Figs. 13-16; Col. 6, Lns. 22-27 and Col. 10, Lns. 4-38), said side loader assembly 70 including an elongated transfer shuttle beam 72 and a transfer shuttle 73 movable along said transfer shuttle beam 72 between a loading position and an unloading position (Figs. 13-16; Col. 10, Lns. 4-38).
Kern fails to explicitly teach at least one back gauge reciprocally movable between a first position distal said bottom clamp and a second position adjacent said bottom clamp, wherein said at least one back gauge is configured to engage a trailing edge of the sheet metal material; at least one lifting tray assembly configured to support the sheet metal material thereon, said at least one lifting tray assembly being reciprocally movable between a lower position and a raised position elevating the sheet metal material to a position above said material working surface allowing for the passage of said at least one back gauge beneath the sheet metal material as the back gauge moves from said second position to said first position.
Sakamoto teaches a pressing machine configured to fold workpieces (Abstract) including a top clamp 7 with a top folding tool 11 coupled thereto and a bottom clamp 5 with a bottom folding tool 9 coupled thereto (Fig. 1) and a transfer shuttle 51 (Fig. 1; Para. [0028]);
at least one back gauge 29L,R reciprocally movable between a first position distal said bottom clamp 5 and a second position adjacent said bottom clamp 5, wherein said at least one back gauge 29L,R is configured to engage a trailing edge of the sheet metal material W (Figs. 1-2; Paras. [0020]-[0021]); and
at least one lifting tray assembly 55 configured to support the sheet metal material W thereon (Figs. 1-2; Paras. [0027]-[0028]), said at least one lifting tray assembly being reciprocally movable between a lower position and a raised position elevating the sheet metal material W to a position above said material working surface allowing for the passage of said at least one back gauge 29L,R beneath the sheet metal material W as the back gauge 29L,R moves from said second position to said first position (Figs. 1-2; Paras. [0028]-[0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the folding machine of Kern to include at least one back gauge and at least one lifting tray assembly to position workpieces providing by a transfer shuttle as taught by Sakamoto so that the workpieces may be precisely positioned and then held in place by the gauges when performing folding operations, thus allowing for more accurate folds on the workpiece.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kern teaches the folding machine of claim 1 (Fig. 1) further comprising a controller for controlling a processing sequence with said top clamp head, said bottom folding apron, said top folding apron, said at least one back gauge, and said at least one lifting tray (Col. 3, Ln. 55 through Col. 4, Ln. 5; Kern includes a control unit for controlling the tools of the machine, and modified Kern includes at least one back gauge and at least one lifting tray as tools being controlled).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kern teaches the folding machine of claim 1 (Fig. 1) wherein said material working surface is a top surface of said at least one bottom clamp head (Fig. 2; the material working surface is interpreted as the top of clamp head 2 which supports the sheet metal material by supporting the components, e.g., table 10, that the sheet metal material is placed on).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kern teaches the folding machine of claim 1 (Fig. 1) wherein said at least one lifting tray assembly comprises a plurality of lifting trays 55 (Sakamoto, Para. [0027]; modified Kern includes the lifting tray assembly of Sakamoto, which teaches a plurality of lifting trays).
Regarding claim 5, Kern teaches a folding machine for folding sheet metal material (Fig. 1; Abstract), the folding machine comprising,
a plurality of bottom clamp heads 2 (Figs. 1-9; Fig. 1 shows there are a plurality of bottom clamp heads 2);
a plurality of top clamp heads 3 pivotally coupled to said plurality of bottom clamp heads 2 (Figs. 1-9 and 13-15; Fig. 1 shows there are a plurality of top clamp heads 3 coupled to the bottom clamp heads 2 via the frame that they are both pivotably coupled to, as shown in Figs. 13-15);
a bottom clamp 21 coupled to said plurality of bottom clamp heads 2 (Figs. 1-9; Col. 6, Lns. 28-49);
a top clamp 23 coupled to said plurality of top clamp heads 3 (Figs. 1-9; Col. 6, Lns. 28-49);
a bottom folding apron 22 coupled to said bottom clamp 21 (Figs. 1-9; Col. 6, Lns. 28-49; the bottom apron 22 is coupled to the bottom clamp 21 via the clamp heads 2 that both are coupled to);
a top folding apron 24 coupled to said top clamp 23 (Figs. 1-9; Col. 6, Lns. 28-49; the top apron 24 is coupled to the top clamp 23 via the clamp heads 3 that both are coupled to);
a material working surface 5 positioned adjacent said bottom clamp 21 (Fig. 2; the material working surface is interpreted as the top of clamp head 2 which supports the sheet metal material by supporting the components, e.g., table 10, that the sheet metal material is placed on);
an elongated transfer shuttle beam 72 positioned below said plurality of top clamp heads 3 (Figs. 13-16; Col. 10, Lns. 4-38), and a transfer shuttle 73 longitudinally movable along said transfer shuttle beam 72 between a loading position and an unloading position (Figs. 13-16; Col. 10, Lns. 4-38).
Kern fails to explicitly teach a plurality of back gauges reciprocally movable between a first position distal said bottom clamp and a second position adjacent said bottom clamp, wherein said plurality of back gauges are configured to engage the sheet metal material positioned upon said material working surface; a plurality of lifting trays, wherein each lifting tray is reciprocally movable between a lower position wherein the sheet metal material is at least partially supported upon said material working surface and a raised position wherein each said lifting tray is positioned above said material working surface to a height wherein said plurality of back gauges may pass beneath the sheet metal material being supported upon the plurality of lifting trays.
Sakamoto teaches a pressing machine configured to fold workpieces (Abstract) including a top clamp 7 with a top folding tool 11 coupled thereto and a bottom clamp 5 with a bottom folding tool 9 coupled thereto (Fig. 1) and a transfer shuttle 51 (Fig. 1; Para. [0028]);
at plurality of back gauges 29L,R reciprocally movable between a first position distal said bottom clamp 5 and a second position adjacent said bottom clamp 5, wherein said plurality of back gauges 29L,R is configured to engage the sheet metal material W positioned upon said material working surface (Figs. 1-2; Paras. [0020]-[0021]); and
a plurality of lifting trays 55 configured to support the sheet metal material W thereon (Figs. 1-2; Paras. [0027]-[0028]; the device includes a plurality of lifting trays), wherein each lifting tray 55 is reciprocally movable between a lower position wherein the sheet metal material is at least partially supported upon said material working surface 41 and a raised position wherein each said lifting tray is positioned above said material working surface 41 to a height wherein said plurality of back gauges 29L,R may pass beneath the sheet metal material W being supported by the plurality of lifting trays (Figs. 1-2; Paras. [0028]-[0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the folding machine of Kern to include a plurality of back gauges and a plurality of lifting trays to position workpieces providing by a transfer shuttle as taught by Sakamoto so that the workpieces may be precisely positioned and then held in place by the gauges when performing folding operations, thus allowing for more accurate folds on the workpiece.
Regarding claim 6, modified Kern teaches the folding machine of claim 5 (Fig. 1) further comprising a controller for controlling a processing sequence with said plurality of top clamp heads, said bottom folding apron, said top folding apron, said plurality of back gauges, and said plurality of lifting trays (Col. 3, Ln. 55 through Col. 4, Ln. 5; Kern includes a control unit for controlling the tools of the machine, and modified Kern includes back gauges and lifting trays as tools being controlled).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kern teaches the folding machine of claim 5 (Fig. 1) wherein said material working surface is a top surface of said plurality of bottom clamp heads (Fig. 2; the material working surface is interpreted as the top of clamp head 2 which supports the sheet metal material by supporting the components, e.g., table 10, that the sheet metal material is placed on).
Regarding claim 9, Kern teaches the method of claim 8 (Figs. 2-9).
Kern fails to explicitly teach wherein in steps (D) and (E) lifting trays raise the second sheet metal material above a material working surface so that back gauges used to index the sheet metal material may pass beneath the raised second sheet metal material.
Sakamoto a method of folding sheets (Abstract) including lifting trays 55 raise the second sheet metal material W above a material working surface 41 so that back gauges 29L,R used to index the sheet metal material W may pass beneath the raised second sheet metal material W (Figs. 1-2; Paras. [0028]-[0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the folding method of Kern to include lifting trays raising the sheet material so that back gauges may pass beneath it as taught by Sakamoto so that the workpieces may be precisely positioned and then held in place by the gauges when performing folding operations, thus allowing for more accurate folds on the workpiece. It is noted that modifying the method of Sakamoto to include these steps would result in that step being performed steps D and E as the lifting tray and back gauges are used to receive and position each new sheet being transported into the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2024/0131572 A1 teaches a folding machine (Abstract) including top and bottom clamps and clamp heads (Figs. 1-3 show the clamps and clamp heads of bending machine 1 with tools attached to each) and a side loader assembly 3 positioned between said bottom clamp head and said top clamp head (Fig. 3 shows the side loader is positioned between the clamp heads in the vertical plane), said side loader assembly 3 including an elongated transfer shuttle beam 11 and a transfer shuttle 7 movable along said transfer shuttle beam between a loading position and an unloading position (Figs. 1-12; Paras. [0046]-[0047]). US 2016/0107847 A1 (Fig. 2) teaches a loader assembly including a shuttle beam and a transfer shuttle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights