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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: (1) it is suggested to amend the limitation “preforming a metal sheet to give a sheet metal preform…in a preforming tool” to read as “preforming a metal sheet to form a sheet metal preform…with a preforming tool”, and the limitation “final forming of the sheet metal preform to give a sheet metal component in a sizing tool” to read as “final forming of the sheet metal preform to form a sheet metal component with a sizing tool”; (2) there appears to be a typographical error in the phrase “at least on of” and for examination purposes the phrase is being read as: at least one of. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: (1) where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. [see 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p)]; and (2) it is suggested to remove the phrase “of the sheet metal preform to be produced” and the phrase “od the sheet metal component to be produced” from the limitations “of the preforming tool of the sheet metal preform to be produced” and “of the sizing tool of the sheet metal component to be produced”. It is noted that the claim is directed to an apparatus and therefore claimed subject matter should be defined by the structure of the apparatus and not the structure of the resulting workpiece formed by the apparatus.
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 1-14 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.
With regards to claim 1, the claim states “wherein the sheet metal preform has excess sheet metal material, at least in some region or regions”, it is unclear the “at least sone region or regions” is intending to be different from the at least some region or regions with a flange and/or transition between the body and the flange or if the limitation is intending to refer to the same at least some region or regions as previously recited in the claim. Clarification and/or correction is required.
The claim states in the wherein clause “of the preforming tool of the sheet metal preform to be produced” and “of the sizing tool of the sheet metal component to be produced”, this renders the claim indefinite since the method has previously recited the preform and the component are already formed, therefore it is unclear what the “to be produced” is intending to refer to. Specifically, it is intending to set forth that the subject matter within the wherein clause is to occur prior to the preforming and final forming steps of the method?
The claim states “wherein the effective surface of the preforming tool…are configured in such a way in comparison with the effective surfaces of the sizing tool…”, it is unclear which, if any step the wherein clause is intending to further define. Specifically, the claim fails to set forth a comparing/comparison step and only recites a preforming step and a final forming step, therefore it is unclear at what point within the method does the comparison take place.
The claim states “when the preforming tool and the sizing tool are compared”, it is noted that this language is couched in a narrative format which does not lend itself to a clear understanding of the essential steps of the method. Positively setting forth the method as a series of steps with the essential features of each step being distinctly claimed would overcome the indefiniteness with regard to the inferential claimed provision. Applicant is respectfully reminded that to be entitled to patentable weight in method claims, the structural limitations recited therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure [see Ex parte Pfeiffer, 135 USPQ 31 (1961)]. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced, e.g. it doesn't begin a step with a gerund term.
The claim states “a torsion angle difference of at least 0.2” is established on consideration of the differential angle between the two main axes of inertia”, this renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what is encompassed within the limitation “is established on consideration”. Clarification and/or correction is required.
There appears to be insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the differential angle”, the limitation “the centroids” and the limitation “the tool gap”.
The claim states “a curvature in the longitudinal extent of the sheet metal preform that deviates by at least 1% from the curvature in the longitudinal extent of the sheet metal component to be produced is established at least in some region or regions in the sheet metal preform to be produced in comparison with the sheet metal component to be produced”, this renders the claim indefinite since (1) it is unclear when a curvature in the longitudinal extent of either the preform or the component is formed, (2) there appears to be insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the curvature in the longitudinal extent of the sheet metal component”, and (3) it is unclear if the limitation “at least in some region or regions” is intending to refer to the same region or regions previously recited in claim 1 or if it is setting forth additional region or regions.
With regards to claim 2, the claim states “wherein the effective surface of the preforming tool are configured in such a way in comparison with the effective surfaces of the sizing tool…”, it is unclear which, if any step the wherein clause is intending to further define. Specifically, the claim fails to set forth a comparing/comparison step and only recites a preforming step and a final forming step, therefore it is unclear at what point within the method does the comparison take place.
The claim states “is established at the same location in the sheet metal preform to be produced in comparison with the sheet metal component to be produced”, this renders the claim indefinite since the method has previously recited the preform and the component are already formed, therefore it is unclear what the “to be produced” is intending to refer to. Specifically, it is intending to set forth that the subject matter within the wherein clause is to occur prior to the preforming and final forming steps of the method? It is further noted that it is unclear how the preform is to be compared to the component when the method sets forth that the preform is final formed into the component, therefore there is no point within the method where the preform and the component are both present to be compared to one another. Clarification and/or correction is required.
With regards to claim 3, the claim states “wherein a steel sheet with a yield strength of at least 400MPa is used” it is unclear if this limitation is intending to further define the metal sheet set forth in claim 1 or if it is setting forth a different sheet from the metal sheet. For examination purposes the claim is being interpreted as: wherein the metal sheet is a steel sheet with a yield strength of at least 400MPa.
With regards to claim 4, the claim states “for carrying out a method as claimed in claim 3” and then further recites “having at least one preforming tool for preforming a metal sheet to give a sheet metal preform having…a base, at least one body, at least one transition…” and “at least one sizing tool…” this renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the claim is intending to refer to the same preforming tool, metal sheet, preform, sizing tool, etc. as set forth in claim 1 (from which claim 3 depends) or if the limitations are intending to set forth structure in addition to the structure recited within claim 1. It is further noted that the method recites a single preforming tool and a single sizing tool yet claim 4 is not reciting “at least one preforming tool” and “at least one sizing tool”, should the claim intend to refer to the same tools as those of claim 1 then this would result in the claim being indefinite since the claim would have a narrow recitation and a broad recitation within the same claim. Clarification and/or correction is required.
The claim states “a torsion angle difference of at least 0.2” is established on consideration of the differential angle between the two main axes of inertia”, this renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what is encompassed within the limitation “is established on consideration”. Clarification and/or correction is required.
There appears to be insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the two main axes of inertia”, the limitation “the respective cross-sectional shape”, the limitation “the centroids”, the limitation “ the tool gap”, and the limitation “the curvature in the longitudinal extend of the sheet metal component”.
It is noted that the claim is directed to an apparatus and therefore claimed subject matter should be defined by the structure of the apparatus and not the structure of the resulting workpiece formed by the apparatus.
The claim states “a curvature in the longitudinal extent of the sheet metal preform that deviates by at least 1% from the curvature in the longitudinal extent of the sheet metal component to be produced is established at least in some region or regions in the sheet metal preform to be produced in comparison with the sheet metal component to be produced”, this renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the limitation “at least in some region or regions” is intending to refer to the same region or regions previously recited in claim 1 or if it is setting forth additional region or regions.
With regards to claim 5, the claim states “the effective surfaces of the preforming tool are configured in such a way in comparison with the effective surfaces of the sizing tool that a body opening angle…is established at the same location in the sheet metal preform to be produced in comparison with the sheet metal component to be produced”, this renders the claim indefinite since it appears that the structure of the apparatus, i.e. tools, is being defined by an element that is not positively recited within the claim. Specifically, the sheet metal preform and the sheet metal component are the workpiece that apparatus is intended to work on or produce and is not positively recited structure of the device; therefore it is unclear what structural elements are required within the tool. Clarification and/or correction is required.
With regards to claims 5-6 and 8, the claims state “the sizing tool”, this renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the limitation is intending to further define the “at least one sizing tool” recited in claim 4 to be a single sizing tool, or if the limitation is intending to refer to the “at least one sizing tool” of claim 4. Clarification and/or correction is required.
With regards to claims 10 and 12, the claims state “is moved in a controlled manner by at least one of means of the ram stroke and additional control units”, this renders the claim indefinite since the use of the term “additional” implies a previously recited control unit, however the claims are silent with respect to any control units other than the additional control units. Clarification is required.
With regards to claims 11 and 13, there appears to be insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the lower end position” found in line 3.
With regards to claim 13, the claim states “wherein the element ends substantially flush with the effective surfaces of the sizing die during closure” this renders the claim indefinite since (1) it is unclear if the limitation “the element” is intending to further define the “at least one element” to be a single element or if the limitation is intending to refer to the at least one, and (2) it is unclear how the element is to become flush with the effective surfaces of the sizing die when the element is recited in claim 8 that the at least one element is arranged within the sizing punch and not the sizing die. Clarification and/or correction is required.
Examiner notes that no art has been applied to claim 1-14 because “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art” [see MPEP 2173.06.II].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2010/0133724 to Flehmig et al, US 2020/0078849 to Marx et al and US 2020/0384522 to Flehmig et al disclose a method of producing a sheet metal component including a preforming step where a hot shaped preform is formed having excess material therein and a final forming step where the hat shaped preform is formed into a hat shaped component.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Debra Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)272-1904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4:30pm 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, Chris Templeton can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Debra M Sullivan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights