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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 16-26, in the reply filed on 29 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 27-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 29 May 2026.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16-19 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feied et al. (US 2023/0191543 A1).
Claim 16:
Feied discloses a machine tool (abstract), comprising
a machine frame (SCOFAST machine structure supporting all modules) having at least one linear movable tool carrier slide (6B, 6C, 6D, 6E, 17, 27) configured to carry a working unit (figs. 3A/3B and 8A/8B, ¶¶ 856, 857, 858, 859, 967);
Examiner note: Feied discloses, in its Forchine embodiment (Figs. 3A–3B), a machine comprising multiple linear movable tool carrier slides, including a front cross slide (17) carried on a front cross slide carriage (18), a rear cross slide (27) carried on a rear cross slide carriage (28), and upper tool positioner slides (6B)–(6E) comprising discrete Z-axis, X-axis, and Y-axis slides, each carrying respective toolholders. See Fig. 3A element list; Fig. 3B element list. Feied further discloses, in its bending tool embodiment (Figs. 8A–8B), that an active bending tool may be mounted on "an overhead slide directly over the main workholding spindle," a "secondary z-axis slide," a "cross slide," or a "bottom slide," each of which constitutes a linear movable tool carrier slide within the meaning of claim 16. See ¶967.
at least a first work spindle (4) provided to receive a workpiece (Forchine embodiment, figs. 3A/3B ¶1168);
a first working unit (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14) mounted onto the at least one tool carrier slide (overhead slide, secondary z-axis slide, cross slide or bottom slide) (additional embodiment, figs. 8A, 8B, ¶0967);
Examiner note: In figs. 3A-3B (the Forchine), numeral 4 represents a workholding spindle and in figs. 8A-8B (the bending tool) number 4 represents a bending arm. Reference numeral (4) denotes completely different structural elements in each figure set. Feied is using figure-local numbering, not global numbering across the entire patent.
wherein the first working unit (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14) is configured to be rotatable around a B-axis and the first working unit is further configured to be movable linearly along a X-Z plane, the X-Z plane being perpendicular to the B-axis (additional embodiment, figs. 8A, 8B, ¶0967); and
the first working unit (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14) has a bending tool (4, 6) and for performing a bending operation, the first working unit (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14) is configured to bend the workpiece received by the first work spindle by rotating around the B-axis and/or moving linearly along the X-Z plane (figs. 8A, 8B, 14A, ¶176, 967, 976, 978, 980).
Examiner note: Feied discloses, in its bending tool embodiment (Figs. 8A–8B), an active bending tool assembly comprising a high-torque tool spindle motor (1), toolholder mechanism (2), central shaft (3), bending arm (4), central shaft roller (5), and bending arm roller (6), mounted on a linear slide. See ¶ 0967. The slide advances the bending tool linearly toward the workpiece (linear movement along the X-Z plane), after which the tool spindle motor rotates the central shaft, causing the bending arm to sweep the bending arm roller into contact with the workpiece and delivering sufficient torque to bend the workpiece around the central shaft roller. See ¶¶ 0976, 0978. Bending is therefore performed by rotation and/or linear movement, satisfying the "and/or" disjunctive of claim 16. Feied further discloses that each tool in a SCOFAST machine "can additionally be rotated around a tool-specific A axis that provides yaw with respect to the tool and around a tool-specific B axis that provides pitch with respect to the tool," where the B-axis is defined as rotation around the Y-axis per the right-hand rule. See ¶ 0980; ¶ 0176; Fig. 14A. The bending tool assembly, as a tool mounted on a SCOFAST machine carriage, is therefore explicitly rotatable around a B-axis.
Feied's Forchine embodiment (figs. 3A-3B) does not explicitly depict the bending tool of figs. 8A-8B as installed on the Forchine's slides. However, Feied expressly teaches that the bending tool "can be fitted to any axis of a SCOFAST machine," and Forchine is a SCOFAST machine (fig. 2, ¶ 843, 967). Feied further discloses in Fig. 16 and accompanying description a screw hook part having "forged, machined, and bent features" that "is easily and inexpensively manufactured using a SCOFAST machine comprising forging, bending, and machining functions." (fig. 16, ¶1071).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the figs. 8A-8B bending tool onto the Forchine's existing linear movable slides as taught by fig. 16 and the accompanying description in order to provide for overall reduced manufacturing costs when workpieces can be formed, machined, finished and fully inspected in a single unified SCOFAST machine (Feied, ¶1108).
The results would have been predictable because the Forchine provides the forging and machining capability; incorporating the bending tool of Figs. 8A-8B onto the Forchine's existing slides to enable production of bent features such as those shown in Fig. 16 constitutes no more than the combination of known elements disclosed within a single reference, using each element for its stated purpose, to achieve the predictable and explicitly described result of a machine capable of forging, machining, and bending in a spatially coherent manner. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination with a reasonable expectation of success, as Feied supplies the work spindle, the linear slides, the bending tool, and the explicit teaching that their unification in a single machine is the goal of the disclosure.
Claim 17:
Feied renders obvious the machine tool according to claim 16, configured for dual operation to perform bending and machining of at least one workpiece fixed in the first work spindle at least successively (fig. 16, ¶1076).
Claim 18:
Feied renders obvious the machine tool according to 16, wherein the bending tool (6) includes at least a pressure die (6) mounted on the first working unit (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14) and wherein the pressure die (6) is mounted at a tool reception portion of the first working unit (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14) (figs. 8A-8B, ¶978).
Claim 19:
Feied renders obvious the machine tool according to claim 16, further comprising a bending die (central shaft roller, 5) (figs. 8A-8B, ¶978). Feied fails to disclose the bending die is connected to the machine frame and/or mounted on a second working unit of another movable tool carrier slide for additional support during bending of the workpiece. Instead, Feied’s bending tool assembly comprises two distinct structural die elements: a pressure die (bending arm roller, 6) which applies pressure to the workpiece and constitutes the functional pressure die and a bending die (central shaft roller, 5) around which the workpiece is bent and which constitutes the functional bending die (figs. 8A-8B, ¶978). These are discrete, identifiable structural components withing the assembly.
Feied’s Forchine further discloses multiple independent movable tool carrier slides including front cross slide (17) on front cross slide carriage (18), rear cross slide (27) on rear cross slide carriage (28), and upper tool positioner slides (6B)-(6E). Each of these slides are independently adjustable along it respective axis under CNC control (3A-3B, ¶980).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to mount the bending die (5) on a separate movable slide from the pressure die (6), thereby distributing the two bending elements across two of the Forchine's existing independent slides to provide the bending die with independent positional adjustment and additional support during bending. Three independent bases for the conclusion exists within Feied itself. First, Feied explicitly teaches that the bending tool “can be fitted to any axis of a SCOFAST machine (¶967), which encompasses distributing its elements across multiple axes. Second, in the hook-making process of Fig. 16, Feied discloses at step 4 “using two opposing tool positioners” to simultaneously carry and position die elements on both sides of the workpiece for support during a forming operation (¶1253) thereby directly establishing two-positioner, two slide support principle for forming operations. Third, Feied discloses “one carriage and turret for the application of force and another for the positioning and operation of multiple active and passive machining tools” (¶1330) thereby confirming that distributing functional elements across separate carriages is an express design principle of the SCOFAST machine. Any of Feied’s disclosed cross slides or positioner slides, being movable along their axes under CNC control satisfies the requirement that the another movable tool carrier slide be configured to adjust the position of the bending die along its axis. See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 21:
Feied renders obvious the machine tool according to claim 16 wherein for the bending operation the first working unit is configured to generate a bending force and/or torque to bend the workpiece held in the first work spindle by rotating one working unit around the B-axis and, move the working unit at least along a Z- axis, the Z-axis being a horizontal axis to the spindle axis of the first work spindle (figs. 8A-8B) ¶967, 980).
Examiner note: The SCOFAST machine disclosed by Feied, as shown in Figs. 8A-8B (expressly titled "Z-axis view towards barstock"), is structurally capable of performing bending by rotating the bending tool around a B-axis and moving the working unit along the Z-axis. Feied explicitly discloses that each tool carriage tool is rotatable around a tool-specific B-axis, (¶ 980) and that the bending tool may be mounted on a secondary z-axis slide, (¶ 967). The recited function is therefore an obvious capability of the disclosed structure.
Claim 22:
Feied renders obvious the machine tool according to 16, wherein the first working unit (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14) is a tool turret (13) (fig. 3D, ¶ 865, 866, 902); and, Feied fails to disclose the pressure die is mounted at one of a plurality of tool receiving openings of the tool turret. Instead, embodiment 8A-8B discloses the pressure die mounted in a tool holder mechanism (2) (¶968-978).
Feied further discloses a "turret tool bonnet (13) capable of holding multiple tools including indexers, forging dies, threaders, machining tools, measuring devices, and other tools" (fig. 3D, ¶ 865, 866, 902). Feied further discloses that the bending tool "can be fitted to any axis of a SCOFAST machine" (¶967), and that the turret holds multiple forming and machining tools, (¶ 1357).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to mount the Feied pressure die of embodiment 8A-8B to the Feied tool turret of embodiment 3A-3D in order to hold multiple tools at discrete tool-receiving positions and index them into operating position. See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Mounting the pressure die (6) at one of the tool-receiving openings of the tool turret is the predictable application of a known tool-holing structure (tool turret, 13) to a known tool (pressure die, 6).
Claim 23:
Feied renders obvious the machine tool according to claim 16, including a first work spindle (4) as shown in embodiment 3A-3E. Embodiment 3A-3E fails to disclose a second work spindle, wherein the first work spindle is a counter spindle and the second work spindle is a main spindle of the machine tool; and a third working unit configured to machine the workpiece received by the main spindle.
Feied further discloses, in a separate embodiment shown in Fig. 10, a SCOFAST machine configured with dual opposing workholding spindles: left main spindle (32) and right main spindle (36), each mounted on its own carriage ((31) and (35), respectively) along a common axis (¶ 1018). Feied further discloses, in the hook-making fabrication sequence, that the workpiece is transferred between spindles via pick-off: "Pick off the workpiece with the right main spindle collet...The workpiece is now clamped in the right main spindle." (¶ 1260). This describes exactly the functional main spindle / counter spindle relationship recited in claim 23. Feied additionally discloses "spindle or sub-spindle" as a means of index positioning within a SCOFAST machine, confirming that counter-spindle configurations are expressly contemplated. (¶ 1343). Fig. 10 further discloses powered toolholders (13) and (53) on front and rear tool carriages, each capable of machining the workpiece from opposing sides, constituting the third working unit of claim 23.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the first work spindle of embodiment 3A-3E as a counter spindle opposing a main spindle and to include a third working unit to machine the workpiece held in the main spindle as taught by embodiment Fig. 10 of Feied in order to provide for Feied's core SCOFAST design objective: performing all forming, machining, and bending operations on a single workpiece without repositioning between machines (¶1204, 1205). See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Feied explicitly implements this objective in a dual-spindle architecture (Fig. 10) and the ordinary artisan would recognize that the first work spindle (4) functions as a counter spindle in that architecture, with the main spindle (32) or (36) and an opposing powered toolholder (13) or (53) completing the machine configuration. The combination involves only the predictable application of known SCOFAST machine elements functioning in their established capacities.
Claim 24:
Feied renders obvious the machine tool according to claim 16 wherein the workpiece is clamped by a collet system (9) of the at least one work spindle to fix the workpiece for the machining and/or bending operation (figs 3A-3B, ¶1168).
Claim 25:
Feied renders obvious the machine tool according to claim 16 wherein a probe (calibrated measuring probes) for measurement of a geometric parameter of the bent workpiece is provided (¶ 578), and wherein the machine tool includes a control system (¶ 598, 1342) configured to adjust a bending angle by performing a bending operation in dependence of the measured parameter such as the inclination angle or a radius (¶ 598, 605 and 1342).
Claims 20 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feied as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Yogo et al. (US 2015/0352619 A1).
Claim 20:
Feied renders obvious the machine tool according to claim 16; and, Feied fails to disclose a bending die including one or a plurality of workpiece-receiving profiles spaced along its axis and of different radii about this axis and each workpiece receiving profile has a different guiding path with a different radius for bending the same workpiece under different radii or angles. Instead, Feied discloses a SCOFAST machine configured to bend the same workpiece to multiple different curvatures, as evidenced by Fig. 16 and the accompanying hook-making process in which the same workpiece is bent to both an inner curve (2) and an outer curve (3) of different radii in sequential bending operations within a single machine (fig. 16, ¶ 1071, 1265, 1266).
Yogo discloses a bending die (62) including one or a plurality of workpiece-receiving profiles (64) spaced along its axis and of different radii about this axis and each workpiece receiving profile (64) has a different guiding path with a different radius for bending the same workpiece under different radii or angles (¶ 65). Yogo further discloses that "each chuck (70a) has a different size (length) depending on a curvature radius of each groove (64)” establishing that each stacked groove constitutes a workpiece-receiving profile having a different radius (fig. 2, ¶ 69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement Yogo's stacked multi-groove bending die in the SCOFAST machine of Feied in order to provide the at least two different curvatures (the inner and outer curves of the hook of Fig. 16) using separate bending operations, and minimize tool changes and performing multiple operations efficiently within a single machine (Feied, ¶¶ 1119, 1127). See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Implementing Yogo's stacked bending die, to achieve multiple bend radii on the same workpiece from a single die by indexing to the appropriate groove directly advances Feied's stated objective of efficient multi-operation manufacturing. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found this combination obvious with a reasonable expectation of success, as Yogo's stacked die is a well-established structural solution to precisely the multi-radius bending problem that Feied identifies.
Claim 26:
Feied renders obvious the machine tool according to claim 16; and, Feied fails to disclose the bending die and/or pressure die has at least two different pipe-receiving profiles for bending the same workpiece with different curvatures. Instead, Feied discloses a SCOFAST machine configured to bend the same workpiece to multiple different curvatures, as evidenced by Fig. 16 and the accompanying hook-making process in which the same workpiece is bent to both an inner curve (2) and an outer curve (3) of different radii in sequential bending operations within a single machine (fig. 16, ¶ 1071, 1265, 1266).
Yogo discloses a bending die (62) including at least two different pipe-receiving profiles (64) for bending the same workpiece with different curvatures (¶ 65). Yogo further discloses that "each chuck (70a) has a different size (length) depending on a curvature radius of each groove (64)” establishing that each stacked groove constitutes a pipe-receiving profile having a different radius (fig. 2, ¶ 69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement Yogo's stacked multi-groove bending die in the SCOFAST machine of Feied in order to provide the at least two different curvatures (the inner and outer curves of the hook of Fig. 16) using separate bending operations, and minimize tool changes and performing multiple operations efficiently within a single machine (Feied, ¶¶ 1119, 1127). See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Implementing Yogo's stacked bending die, to achieve multiple bend radii on the same workpiece from a single die by indexing to the appropriate groove directly advances Feied's stated objective of efficient multi-operation manufacturing. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found this combination obvious with a reasonable expectation of success, as Yogo's stacked die is a well-established structural solution to precisely the multi-radius bending problem that Feied identifies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Morimura (US 2017/0329316 A1) discloses a machine tool including a tool spindle device. Broggi et al. (US 6,434,993) discloses a machine for bending workpieces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights