Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/688,199

PRESS SYSTEM AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING HOT STAMPED STRUCTURAL COMPONENT

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Feb 29, 2024
Examiner
EKIERT, TERESA M
Art Unit
3725
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Tata Steel Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
902 granted / 1137 resolved
+9.3% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+2.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
1164
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
32.7%
-7.3% vs TC avg
§102
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
§112
32.9%
-7.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1137 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 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: Claim 1: “heating device configured to heat” Claims 6 and 8-10: “atmosphere control means controls” 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 § 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 1-13 and 27-33 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. Claim 1 recites: “wherein the upper die member and the lower die member are configured to perform hot blanking with stamping and in-die quenching on the heated sheet blank in the atmosphere controlled by the controlled atmosphere system to form the hot stamped structural component.” It is unclear how the die members can perform quenching since no specific structural features have been set forth that would be capable of performing the particular function of quenching. Claim 2 recites: “wherein controlling the atmosphere during formation of the hot stamped structural component suppresses generation of scales on the hot stamped structural component.” It is unclear how the elements set forth in the press system would be capable of performing “controlling.” It is noted that the reference to “controlled” in claim 1 does not positively set forth any controller type structure. It is further noted that subsequent dependent claims set forth a control means element. With regards to claim 6, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the enclosure” and “the atmosphere control means” With regards to claim 12, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the atmosphere control means” Claim 27 recites: “performing hot blanking with stamping and in-die quenching on the heated sheet blank by the upper die member and the lower die member in controlled atmosphere to form the hot stamped structural component.” It is unclear how the die members can perform quenching since no specific structural features of the die members have been set forth that would be capable of performing the particular function of quenching. Claim limitation “atmosphere control means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. 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. Claims 1-2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang (US 2014/0090439). With regards to claim 1, Huang discloses a press system comprising: a controlled atmosphere system (200); and a press tool apparatus for manufacturing hot stamped structural component the press tool apparatus comprising: a lower body member (20); an upper body member (32) corresponding to lower body member, wherein the upper body member and the lower body member are configured to move with respect to one another, as seen in at least Figures 3 and 4; a press-tool chamber [not labeled, as seen in at least Figure 3 where fluid 280 is located] defined between the lower body member and the upper body member; an upper die member (25) and a lower die member (23) disposed within the press-tool chamber, wherein the upper die member is coupled to the upper body member and the lower die member is coupled to the lower body member, as seen in Figure 3; a heating device (255/235) disposed within the press-tool chamber, wherein the heating device is configured to heat a sheet blank [paragraph 0035]; and wherein the upper die member and the lower die member are configured to perform hot blanking with stamping and in-die quenching on the heated sheet blank in the atmosphere controlled by the controlled atmosphere system to form the hot stamped structural component [paragraphs 0038-0040]. With regards to claim 2, as best understood, Huang discloses wherein controlling the atmosphere during formation of the hot stamped structural component suppresses generation of scales on the hot stamped structural component. With regards to claim 11, Huang discloses wherein the upper body member and the lower body member are moved relative to the one another via a mechanical arrangement (toggle unit 31). Claims 1-3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bryant et al. (hereafter “Bryant”) (US 2017/0182540). With regards to claim 1, Bryant discloses a press system comprising: a controlled atmosphere system [paragraph 0034]; and a press tool apparatus for manufacturing hot stamped structural component the press tool apparatus comprising: a lower body member (24); an upper body member (22) corresponding to lower body member, wherein the upper body member and the lower body member are configured to move with respect to one another, as seen in at least Figures 3 and 4; a press-tool chamber [not labeled, as seen in at least Figure 3] defined between the lower body member and the upper body member; an upper die member (14) and a lower die member (16) disposed within the press-tool chamber, wherein the upper die member is coupled to the upper body member and the lower die member is coupled to the lower body member, as seen in Figure 3; a heating device (30) disposed within the press-tool chamber, wherein the heating device is configured to heat a sheet blank [paragraph 0037]; and wherein the upper die member and the lower die member are configured to perform hot blanking with stamping and in-die quenching on the heated sheet blank in the atmosphere controlled by the controlled atmosphere system to form the hot stamped structural component [paragraphs 0038-0040]. With regards to claim 2, as best understood, Bryant discloses wherein controlling the atmosphere during formation of the hot stamped structural component suppresses generation of scales on the hot stamped structural component. With regards to claim 3, Bryant discloses wherein the controlled atmosphere system encloses the press tool apparatus, as described in at least paragraph 0034 and Figure 3. With regards to claim 11, Bryant discloses wherein the upper body member and the lower body member are moved relative to the one another via any one of a mechanical arrangement or a hydraulic arrangement [paragraph 0033]. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 27-33 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Claims 4-10 and 12-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M EKIERT whose telephone number is (571)272-1901. 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, Christopher 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. /TERESA M EKIERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 29, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599950
METHOD FOR PREVENTION OF PREMATURE EDGE FRACTURE AT DRAW BEAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599947
ROLLER EXCHANGE MECHANISM FOR REDUCTION ROLL APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12583026
DIE AND HOT PRESS FORMING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580172
ROLL PRESS DEVICE, AND CONTROL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569907
BLIND RIVET SETTING TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+2.9%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1137 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month