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 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 1-3 and 6-14 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 “when the effective surfaces of the preforming tool and the effective surface of the sizing tool are compared”, this renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the limitations following this are required or not. Specifically, the method lacks any step of comparing and the phase “are compared” does not positively recite a comparing step. Additionally, the use of the term “when” implies that the limitations following the term are contingent on performing a comparison of the tools and therefore is optional. For examination purposes the limitation is being interpreted as required when only when a comparing scenario is present.
The claim states “a torsion angle difference of at least 0.2° exists as the differential angle between the two main axes of inertia- said axes being oriented the same way with respect to the respective cross-sectional shape – through the centroids of two parallel cross-sectional areas…of a tool gap enclosed by the respective effective surfaces” this renders the claim indefinite since there appears to be insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the two main axes of inertia” and “the centroids” Additionally, it is unclear if what “two parallel cross-sectional areas” is referring to, i.e. is it cross-sectional areas of the preforming tool and sizing tool. The phrase “a tool gap by the respective effective surfaces” renders the claim indefinite since it appears that this phrase is comparing either the preforming tool or the sizing tool since the effective surface of these tools combine would not create a tool gap yet the limitation previously sets forth the comparison is between the preforming tool and the sizing tool. Clarification and/or correction is required.
The claim states “a curvature in the longitudinal extent of the sheet metal preform that deviates by at least 1% from a curvature in the longitudinal extent of the sheet metal component”, this renders the claim indefinite since the claim fails to positively recite the formation of a curvature within either the preform or the component. Additionally, it is unclear how it is to be established that the preform deviates from the component when the preform and component are never present simultaneously since the preform is formed into the component, i.e. when the preform is present the component has yet to be formed and when the component is formed the preform is no longer present. Clarification and/or correction is required.
In reference to claim 2, the claim states “in comparison”, it is unclear if this is intending to set forth a step of comparing or if it is intending to set forth a scenario in which the tools can be compared. It is noted that the claim only sets forth two active steps of preforming and final forming, therefore it is unclear where within the steps a comparison is to occur.
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 6, 10, 12 and 13, the claim states “the element”, this renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the limitation is intending to further define the “at least one element” previously recited to be a single sizing tool, or if the limitation is intending to refer to the previously recited “at least one element”. Clarification and/or correction is required.
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(s) 1-8 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka (EP 3088093).
In reference to claim 1, Tanaka discloses a method for producing a sheet metal component, wherein the method comprises at least two steps,
preforming a metal sheet to form a sheet metal preform having, in cross section, a base, at least one body, at least one transition between the base and the body, at least in some region a flange, and at least in some region a transition between the body and the flange with a preforming tool (500) which acts by means of its effective surfaces on the metal sheet, wherein the sheet metal preform has excess sheet metal material in at least some region of the sheet metal preform [see figure 24] and
final forming of the sheet metal preform to form a sheet metal component with a sizing tool which acts by means of its effective surfaces on the sheet metal preform, and in which the excess sheet metal material is compressed in the sheet plane [see figure 31A],
wherein the effective surfaces of the preforming tool are configured relative to the effective surfaces of the sizing tool such that a curvature in the longitudinal extend of the sheet metal preform that deviates by at least 1% from a curvature in the longitudinal extent of the sheet metal component is established at least in some regions of the preform as configured in the preforming tool relative to the corresponding curvature of the sheet metal component as configured in the sizing tool [see figure 26A and 27; curvature change is greater than 1% between these elements].
In reference to claim 2, the effective surfaces of the preforming tool are configured in comparison with the effective surfaces of the sizing tool that a body opening angle difference of at least 0.5° is established at the same location in the sheet metal preform as configured in the preforming tool in comparison with the corresponding location in the sheet metal component as configured in the sizing tool.
In reference to claim 3, Tanaka discloses the metal sheet is a steel sheet with a yield strength of at least 400MPa [see figure 35].
In reference to claim 4, Tanaka discloses a device for producing a sheet metal component comprising
at least one preforming tool for preforming a metal sheet to form a sheet metal preform having, in cross section, a base, at least one body, at least one transition between the base and the body, at least in some region a flange, and at least in some region a transition between the body and the flange [see figure 24], which preforming tool acts by means of its effective surfaces on the metal sheet, wherein the metal sheet preform has excess sheet metal material, at least in some region, and
at least one sizing tool (820) for compressing the sheet metal preform to form a fully formed sheet metal component, which sizing tool acts by means of its effective surface on the sheet metal preform, and in which the excess sheet metal material is compressed in the sheet plane,
wherein the effective surfaces of the preforming tool are configured relative to the effective surfaces of the sizing tool such that a curvature in the longitudinal extend of the effective surfaces of the preforming tool that deviates by at least 1% from a curvature in the longitudinal extent of the effective surfaces of the sizing tool is established in at least one region of the effective surfaces of the preforming tool in comparison with the corresponding effective surfaces of the sizing tool [26A and 27; curvature change is greater than 1% between these elements inherently would be from differences between the two tools].
In reference to claim 5, the effective surfaces of the preforming tool are configured in comparison with the effective surfaces of at least one sizing tool that a body opening angle difference of at least 0.5° is established at the same location as between the effective surfaces of the preforming tool and the effective surfaces of the sizing tool.
In reference to claim 6, the sizing tool has a sizing punch (826), a sizing die (822) and at least one element (832) wherein the at least one element is arranged in the sizing die and can be moved relative to the sizing die, as seen in figure 32A.
In reference to claim 7, Tanaka further discloses the sizing punch is arranged on the bottom and the sizing die at the top of the sizing tool, as seen in figure 32A.
In reference to claim 8, the sizing tool has a sizing punch (826), a sizing die (822) and at least one element (828), wherein the at least one element is arranged in the sizing punch and can be moved relative to the sizing punch, as seen in figure 32A.
In reference to claim 10, the at least one element (832) is arranged in the sizing die is moved in a controlled manner by at least one means of the ram stroke in such a way that a defined distance is obtained between the element and the sizing punch during the closure of the sizing tool, as seen in figures 32A-32D [see paragraphs 0096-0097].
In reference to claim 11, the at least one element ends substantially flush with the effective surface of the sizing die during closure, before a lower end position is reached, as seen in figure 32C.
In reference to claim 12, the at least one element arranged in the sizing punch is moved in a controlled manner by at least one of means of the ram stroke in such a way that a defined distance is obtained between the element and the sizing die during the closure of the sizing tool.
In reference to claim 13, the element ends substantially flush with the effective surface of the sizing punch during closure, before the lower end position is reached as seen in figure 32D.
In reference to claim 14, the device is integrated in a compound progressive press.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka.
In reference to claim 9, Tanaka discloses the sizing punch is arranged on the bottom and the sizing die is arranged at the top. Tanaka discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the sizing punch is arranged on the top and the sizing die is arranged on the bottom.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the sizing punch and sizing die, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves routine skill in the art [see In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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