DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-9 and 13-16) in the reply filed on 12 August 2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 10 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. The restriction is made final.
Specification Objections
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities.
In re ¶ 11: based on fig. 2 of the applicant’s drawings, it appears “… the second distance may be from 20% of the first distance from the first distal end to 80% of the first distance from the first distal end” should be –the first distance may be from 20% of the second distance from the first distal end to 80% of the second distance from the first distal end– since the second distance is longer than the first distance.
In re ¶ 45: based on fig. 2 of the applicant’s drawings, it appears “The second distance 74 may be from 20% of the first distance 72 to 80% of the first distance 72, e.g., from 25% of the first distance 72 to 75% of the first distance 72, or from 50% of the first distance 72 to 65% of the first distance 72” should be –The first distance 72 may be from 20% of the second distance 74 to 80% of the second distance 74, e.g., from 25% of the second distance 74 to 75% of the second distance 74, or from 50% of the second distance 74 to 65% of the second distance 74– since the second distance is longer than the first distance.
Appropriate correction for the above list of issues is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 are objected to because of the following informalities.
In re claim 1: “opposite and” in line 5 should be –opposite to the first roller and– to avoid any potential confusion as to what structure the second roller is opposite to; and “area apart” in the second to last line should be –area spaced apart– to be consistent with claim 12.
In re claim 13: “opposite and” in line 5 should be –opposite to the first roller and– to avoid any potential confusion as to what structure the second roller is opposite to; and “area apart” in line 12 should be –area spaced apart– to be consistent with claim 12 and the suggestion to claim 1 above.
Appropriate correction for the above list of issues is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
Claims 9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Any claims not directly addressed are only rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
In re claim 9: in light of fig. 2 of the applicant’s drawings, it is unclear what is meant by “the second distance is from 20% of the first distance from the first distal end to 80% of the first distance from the first distal end” since the second distance 74 is shown to be longer than the first distance 72.
In re claim 14: the recitation the first shape is dependent upon the second geometry” renders the claim indefinite because the intended scope of “dependent upon” is unclear. The recitation is being interpreted to mean –the first shape is identical to the second geometry–.
In re claim 15: the recitation the first shape is independent of the second geometry” renders the claim indefinite because the intended scope of “independent of” is unclear. The recitation is being interpreted to mean –the first shape is different from the second geometry–.
Appropriate correction for the above list of issues is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Crafton (US 1,936,228).
In re claims 1 and 11-12: Crafton discloses a roller offset forming system comprising:
a first roller (a) configured to rotate in a first direction about a first longitudinal axis against a metal sheet (fig. 1);
wherein the first roller includes a first bead 30-32 having a first shape (pg. 1, ln. 103 – pg. 2, ln. 3); and
a second roller (b) disposed opposite the first roller (a) and configured to engage with the first roller (fig. 1);
wherein the second roller (b) is configured to rotate in a second direction that is opposite to the first direction about a second longitudinal axis against the metal sheet to thereby deform the metal sheet and form an offset feature therein (fig. 1, each peak of the corrugations is offset relative to each valley);
wherein the second roller (b) includes a secondary bead 25-27 having a second geometry (pg. 1, ln. 91-102);
wherein the first bead 30-32 is configured to align and mate with the secondary bead 25-27 along a first vertical axis 40 that is substantially perpendicular to the first longitudinal axis and the second longitudinal axis to thereby hold the metal sheet between the first roller (a) and the second roller (b, fig. 1).
Crafton does not explicitly disclose: wherein the first shape and the second geometry are configured to mitigate a distortion of the metal sheet in an area spaced apart from the offset feature and stiffen the metal sheet at the offset feature, such that the metal sheet is substantially free from distortion in the area spaced apart from the offset feature.
However, the limitations amount to nothing more than intended functions of the first shape and second geometry which do not impart any structure to them that distinguishes them from those of Crafton. The applicant is reminded that claim limitations consisting of functional language and/or intended use language are given little, if any, patentable weight as the apparatus must merely be capable of functioning, or being used, as claimed. See MPEP § 2111.04 stating that claim scope may not be limited by claim language, such as “wherein” clauses, that do not limit a claim to a particular structure, and § 2114 stating that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate device claims from the prior art. Further, the applicant is reminded that the patentability of apparatus claims must depend upon structural limitations, not mere statements of functions (see Galland-Henning Manufacturing Company et al. v. Dempster Brothers, Inc., 165 USPQ 688 (E.D. Tenn. 1970)). Therefore, because there is no structure recited to distinguish the claimed first shape and second geometry from those of Crafton, then one must consider the first shape and second geometry of Crafton to be configured to perform (i.e., capable of performing) the claimed functions.
In re claim 2, which depends on claim 1: Crafton discloses the first bead 30-32 defines a first channel therein (fig. 1), and the secondary bead 25-27 is configured to protrude into the first channel along the first vertical axis 40 (fig. 1).
In re claim 3, which depends on claim 1: Crafton discloses each of the first bead 30-32 and the secondary bead 25-27 is symmetrical across the first vertical axis 40 (fig. 1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Crafton, in view of King (US 5,259,228).
In re claim 4, which depends on claim 1: Crafton discloses the first bead 30-32 is symmetrical across the first vertical axis 40 (fig. 1).
Crafton does not explicitly disclose the secondary bead is asymmetrical across the first vertical axis. However, there can be no criticality for the secondary bead being asymmetrical across the first vertical axis since the applicant teaches an acceptable embodiment wherein the secondary bead is symmetrical across the first vertical axis (see e.g., claim 3).
Nevertheless, King teaches a rolling mill comprising a first roller 21c having a first bead that is symmetrical across a first vertical axis and a second roller 22c having a secondary bead that is asymmetrical across the first vertical axis (see annotated fig. 2 of King below). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Crafton in the claimed manner, as taught by King, because selecting from known shapes/geometries of first and secondary beads allowing for sufficient functionality would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan.
PNG
media_image1.png
202
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 5-9, 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Crafton, in view of Junkers (US 1,517,633).
In re claim 5, which depends on claim 1: Crafton does not explicitly disclose the first roller further includes a primary bead spaced apart from the first bead along the first longitudinal axis and having a first geometry, and the second roller further includes a second bead spaced apart from the secondary bead along the second longitudinal axis and having a second shape.
Junkers teaches producing corrugated metal sheets having multiple ribs and channels formed along the peaks and valleys (fig. 5), the metal sheets being able to support heavy loads per unit of surface area while keeping the weight of the corrugated metal sheet as low as possible even when a distance between supporting members to which it is to be attached is relatively large (pg. 1, ln. 8-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Crafton as claimed, thereby enabling Crafton to produce corrugated metal sheets able to support heavy loads while keeping the weight of the corrugated metal sheet as low as possible, as taught by Junkers. The proposed modification results in the first roller further including a primary bead spaced apart from the first bead along the first longitudinal axis and having a first geometry, and the second roller further including a second bead spaced apart from the secondary bead along the second longitudinal axis and having a second shape (see annotated fig. 5 of Junkers below, the reference numbers correspond to features of fig. 1 of Crafton; note that fig. 1-4 and 6 of Junkers also teaches the subject matter of the applicant’s claim 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
326
846
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Crafton does not explicitly teach the first geometry and the second geometry are configured to mitigate a distortion of the metal sheet in an area apart from the offset feature and stiffen the metal sheet at the offset feature. However, the limitations amount to nothing more than intended functions of the first geometry and the second geometry which do not impart any structure to them that distinguishes them from those of modified Crafton. The applicant is reminded that claim limitations consisting of functional language and/or intended use language are given little, if any, patentable weight as the apparatus must merely be capable of functioning, or being used, as claimed. See MPEP § 2111.04 stating that claim scope may not be limited by claim language, such as “wherein” clauses, that do not limit a claim to a particular structure, and § 2114 stating that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate device claims from the prior art. Further, the applicant is reminded that the patentability of apparatus claims must depend upon structural limitations, not mere statements of functions (see Galland-Henning Manufacturing Company et al. v. Dempster Brothers, Inc., 165 USPQ 688 (E.D. Tenn. 1970)). Therefore, because there is no structure recited to distinguish the claimed first and second geometries from those of Crafton, then one must consider the first and second geometries of Crafton to be configured to perform (i.e., capable of performing) the claimed functions.
In re claim 6, which depends on claim 5: modified Crafton teaches the second bead is configured to align and mate with the primary bead along a second vertical axis spaced apart from the first vertical axis along the second longitudinal axis to thereby hold the metal sheet between the first roller and the second roller (see fig. 5 above).
In re claim 7, which depends on claim 5: modified Crafton teaches the second bead defines a second channel therein, and the primary bead is configured to protrude into the second channel (see fig. 5 above).
In re claim 8, which depends on claim 5: modified Crafton teaches the first bead has a first radius; the primary bead has a primary radius that is less than the first radius; the second bead has a second radius; and the secondary bead has a secondary radius that is less than the second radius (see fig. 5 above).
In re claim 9, which depends on claim 5 and is being examined as best understood: Crafton discloses the first roller (a) has a first distal end (left end); the second roller (b) has a second distal end (left end) aligned with the first distal end along a vertical axis that is substantially perpendicular to the first longitudinal axis and the second longitudinal axis (see fig. 1).
Modified Crafton teaches the primary bead is disposed at a first distance from the first distal end; the secondary bead is disposed at a second distance from the second distal end; and the first distance is from 20% of the second distance from the first distal end to 80% of the second distance from the first distal end (see fig. 5 above, the first distance is about 38% of the second distance; note that although King does not teach the drawings are to scale and, thus, do not define the precise proportions of the elements, the applicant is not claiming a precise proportion but, rather, a broad range of possible proportions).
In re claim 13: Crafton discloses a roller offset forming tool comprising:
a first roller (a) configured to rotate in a first direction against a metal sheet (fig. 1);
wherein the first roller (a) includes a first bead 30-32 having a first shape (pg. 1, ln. 103 – pg. 2, ln. 3); and
a second roller (b) disposed opposite and configured to engage with the first roller (fig. 1);
wherein the second roller (b) is configured to rotate in a second direction that is opposite to the first direction against the metal sheet to thereby deform the metal sheet and form an offset feature therein (fig. 1, each peak of the corrugations is offset relative to each valley);
wherein the second roller (b) includes a secondary bead 25-27 having a second geometry (pg. 1, ln. 91-102);
wherein each of the first shape and the second geometry incudes a bottom fillet, a top fillet spaced apart from the bottom fillet, a top, a bottom spaced apart from the top, a side wall connecting the top and the bottom, and an angle of inclination defined between the bottom and the side wall (fig. 1 and pg. 1, ln. 91 – pg. 2, ln. 3); and
wherein each of the first shape and the second geometry is defined by at least one of:
a first variable set including a bottom fillet radius, a top fillet radius, a bottom half width, a top half width, and a bead height (fig. 1 and pg. 1, ln. 91 – pg. 2, ln. 3); and
a second variable set including the bottom fillet radius, the top fillet radius, the angle of inclination, a side wall length, and the top half width (fig. 1 and pg. 1, ln. 91 – pg. 2, ln. 3).
Crafton does not explicitly disclose the first roller further includes a primary bead spaced apart from the first bead along the first longitudinal axis and having a first geometry, and the second roller further includes a second bead spaced apart from the secondary bead along the second longitudinal axis and having a second shape.
Junkers teaches producing corrugated metal sheets having multiple ribs and channels formed along the peaks and valleys (fig. 5), the metal sheets being able to support heavy loads per unit of surface area while keeping the weight of the corrugated metal sheet as low as possible even when a distance between supporting members to which it is to be attached is relatively large (pg. 1, ln. 8-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Crafton as claimed, thereby enabling Crafton to produce corrugated metal sheets able to support heavy loads while keeping the weight of the corrugated metal sheet as low as possible, as taught by Junkers. The proposed modification results in the first roller further including a primary bead spaced apart from the first bead along the first longitudinal axis and having a first geometry, and the second roller further including a second bead spaced apart from the secondary bead along the second longitudinal axis and having a second shape (see annotated fig. 5 of Junkers below, the reference numbers correspond to features of fig. 1 of Crafton; note that fig. 1-4 and 6 of Junkers also teaches the subject matter of the applicant’s claim 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
326
846
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Crafton does not explicitly disclose the first shape, the second shape, the first geometry, and the second geometry are configured to mitigate a distortion of the metal sheet in an area apart from the offset feature and stiffen the metal sheet at the offset feature.
However, the limitations amount to nothing more than intended functions of the first shape, the second shape, the first geometry, and the second geometry which do not impart any structure to them that distinguishes them from those of modified Crafton. The applicant is reminded that claim limitations consisting of functional language and/or intended use language are given little, if any, patentable weight as the apparatus must merely be capable of functioning, or being used, as claimed. See MPEP § 2111.04 stating that claim scope may not be limited by claim language, such as “wherein” clauses, that do not limit a claim to a particular structure, and § 2114 stating that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate device claims from the prior art. Further, the applicant is reminded that the patentability of apparatus claims must depend upon structural limitations, not mere statements of functions (see Galland-Henning Manufacturing Company et al. v. Dempster Brothers, Inc., 165 USPQ 688 (E.D. Tenn. 1970)). Therefore, because there is no structure recited to distinguish the claimed features from those of Crafton, then one must consider the first shape, the second shape, the first geometry, and the second geometry of modified Crafton to be configured to perform (i.e., capable of performing) the claimed functions.
In re claim 14, which depends on claim 13 and is being examined as best understood: Crafton discloses the first shape is dependent upon the second geometry (see fig. 1 and pg. 1, ln. 91 – pg. 2, ln. 3; the first shape of the first bead 30-32 matches the second geometry of the secondary bead 25-27).
In re claim 16, which depends on claim 13: Crafton discloses the angle of inclination is greater than 0° and less than or equal to 90° (see fig. 1 and pg. 1, ln. 91 – pg. 2, ln. 3).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Crafton, in view of Junkers, and further in view of King (US 5,259,228).
In re claim 15, which depends on claim 13: modified Crafton does not explicitly teach the first shape is independent of the second geometry. However, there can be no criticality for the first shape being independent of the second geometry since the applicant teaches an acceptable embodiment wherein the first shape is dependent upon the second geometry (see e.g., claim 14).
Nevertheless, King teaches a rolling mill comprising a first roller 21c having a first bead including a first shape and a second roller 22c having a secondary bead including a second geometry, wherein the first shape is independent of the second geometry (see annotated fig. 2 of King below). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Crafton in the claimed manner, as taught by King, because selecting from known shapes/geometries of first and secondary beads allowing for sufficient functionality would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan.
PNG
media_image1.png
202
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jared O. Brown whose telephone number is 303-297-4445. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 5:00 (Mountain Time).
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 complete and submit the Automated Interview Request (AIR) form located at the following website: http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher (“Chris”) L. 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. For more information about Patent Center, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center; and for information about filing in DOCX format, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx. 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 THE USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights