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 6-10 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.
In re Claim 6, “a punching machine comprising a punching die according to claim 1,” is indefinite. It is unclear what additional structural limitations are being claimed. Does claim 1 claim an upper platen and is a “punching machine” both an upper and lower platen? The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 7, “a punching machine comprising a punching die according to claim 2,” is indefinite. It is unclear what additional structural limitations are being claimed. Does claim 1 claim an upper platen and is a “punching machine” both an upper and lower platen? The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 8, “a punching machine comprising a punching die according to claim 3,” is indefinite. It is unclear what additional structural limitations are being claimed. Does claim 1 claim an upper platen and is a “punching machine” both an upper and lower platen? The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 9, “a punching machine comprising a punching die according to claim 4,” is indefinite. It is unclear what additional structural limitations are being claimed. Does claim 1 claim an upper platen and is a “punching machine” both an upper and lower platen? The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 10, “a punching machine comprising a punching die according to claim 5,” is indefinite. It is unclear what additional structural limitations are being claimed. Does claim 1 claim an upper platen and is a “punching machine” both an upper and lower platen? The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,226,143 to Whitecotton in view of CN 207954144 U with evidence from DE 101 48 181 A1.
In re Claim 1, Whitecotton teaches a punching die comprising:
(a) a plurality of wood molded boards each formed by performing a thermo-pressure process on wood chips at a predetermined temperature and under a predetermined pressure (see Fig. 5, #21, plywood – the examiner notes that the claims are apparatus claims and that “"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself.” – see MPEP 2113. Here, what is being claimed is the resulting product, a plywood board – additionally, DE 101 48 181 A1 provides evidence that plywood can be made of work or chips – see Claim 3 of DE 101 48 181 A1);
(c) a blade member press-fitted into a groove formed in the die substrate by means of laser machining such that the groove penetrates through the die substrate (see Fig. 5, #26 – the Examiner notes that the claims are apparatus claims, and that “"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself.” – see MPEP 2113 – see also MPEP 2113, teaching Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803, 218 USPQ 289, 292-33 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Here the process of making the grooves does not limit the product); and
Whitecotton is silent as to:
(b) adhesive disposed between the stacked molded boards for bonding together to compose a die substrate; and
wherein (d) in the die substrate, densities of near-surface regions composed of regions located near opposite surfaces of the die substrate and a density of a central region composed of regions located adjacent to each other with the adhesive intervening therebetween are higher than densities of intermediate regions located between the near-surface regions and the central region.
However, CN 207954144 U, teaches that it is known in the art to provide plywood between stacked molded boards for bonding together to compose a die substrate (see CN 207954144 U, Fig. 1, #500); and
wherein (d) in the die substrate, densities of near-surface regions composed of regions located near opposite surfaces of the die substrate and a density of a central region composed of regions located adjacent to each other with the adhesive intervening therebetween are higher than densities of intermediate regions located between the near-surface regions and the central region (see CN 207954144 U, teaches tung wood/paulownia, having a density of 200 kg/m grams to 400 kg/m grams and eucalyptus wood, having a density of more than 550 kg/m3, #200m, see translation abstract and translation Pg. 2, ll. 1-9).
In the same field of invention, plywood, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to utilize the plywood of CN 207954144 U. Doing so provides a small deformation and low warping plywood (see CN 207954144 U, abstract).
In re Claim 6, modified Whitecotton, in re Claim 1, teaches a punching machine comprising a punching die according to claim 1 (see Whitecotton, Fig. 5, #40/20).
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,226,143 to Whitecotton in view of CN 207954144 U, with evidence from DE 101 48 181 A1, and further in view of GB 2,386,585 A.
In re Claim 2, modified Whitecotton, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein each of the molded boards is composed of an MDF. However, GB 2,386,585 A teaches that it is known in the art of dies to use a medium density fiber board (see GB 2,386,585 A, teaching “It has been found that medium density fibre board (MDF) provides a good compromise between cost and performance but it would be alternatively possible to use, for example, Shipboard, high density fibre board (HDF) or plywood.” See Pg. 2, ll. 34 – Pg. 3, ll. 5)
In re Claim 7, modified Whitecotton, in re Claim 2, teaches a punching machine comprising a punching die according to claim 1 (see Whitecotton, Fig. 5, #40/20).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,226,143 to Whitecotton in view of CN 207954144 U, with evidence from DE 101 48 181 A1, and further in view of JP H1086107A.
In re Claim 3, modified Whitecotton, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the adhesive is a foaming adhesive which is high in heat resistance and elasticity.
However, JP H1086107A teaches that it is known in the art of plywood manufacturing to use foaming adhesive (see JP H1086107A, translation, teaches “a foaming type adhesive is preferable. This is because the adhesive easily spreads sufficiently in the voids between the pieces of wood during the foaming, and the amount of the adhesive used can be reduced by increasing the volume due to the foaming.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to use a foaming type adhesive in a plywood board. Doing so easily spreads sufficiently in the voids between the pieces of wood during the foaming, and the amount of the adhesive used can be reduced by increasing the volume due to the foaming. (See JP H1086107A, translation).
In re Claim 8, modified Whitecotton, in re Claim 3, teaches a punching machine comprising a punching die according to claim 3 (see Whitecotton, Fig. 5, #40/20).
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,226,143 to Whitecotton in view of CN 207954144 U, with evidence from DE 101 48 181 A1, and further in view of EP 0 411 452 B1.
In re Claim 4, modified Whitecotton, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the intermediate regions of each of the molded boards has a density of 460 kg/in3 to 720 kg/in3, inclusive. However, EP 0 411 452 B1 teaches that it is known in the art of plywood to provide a plywood wherein “the layers making up the panel are three, the two outer ones being of marine plywood and the inner one of synthetic rubber and its specific weight is between 300 kg/m3 and 500 kg/m3.” (see EP 0 411 452 B1, translation. Doing so is the substitution of one known plywood structure for another known plywood structure to achieve the result of reducing vibration (see EP 0 411 452 B1, abstract).
In re Claim 9, modified Whitecotton, in re Claim 4, teaches a punching machine comprising a punching die according to claim 4 (see Whitecotton, Fig. 5, #40/20).
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,226,143 to Whitecotton in view of CN 207954144 U ,with evidence from DE 101 48 181 A1, and further in view of US 2005/0045015 to Brayton.
In re Claim 5, modified Whitecotton, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the molded boards are covered with a surface member. However, Brayton teaches that it is known to provide a surface member on the die (see Figs. 1-3, #21, covered sheets; see also Para. 0026-27). In the same field of invention, dies, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide cover sheets. Doing so protects the inner core and provide a degree of strength (see Para. 0026).
In re Claim 10, modified Whitecotton, in re Claim 5, teaches a punching machine comprising a punching die according to claim 5 (see Whitecotton, Fig. 5, #40/20).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at 571-270-3818. 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724