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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the election of claim 1-4 in the reply filed on 10/07/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group II claims are a method of using the apparatus of the elected Group I claims, and therefore should be rejoined. This is not found persuasive because the two groups do not share any special technical feature, and therefore lack unity of invention as detailed in the Requirement for Election/Restriction mailed 8/27/2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim Sun Joong (KR 20100004421 A – hereinafter Joong).
Regarding claim 1, Joong teaches a processing apparatus including a punch (Fig. 3, Punch 20) and a die (Fig. 3, Die 30) to be positioned on one side and another side of a workpiece constituted by a metal sheet (Fig. 3, Steel Plate W), the one and the other sides being arranged in a sheet-thickness direction (Fig. 3, vertical direction when viewing Fig. 3), the processing apparatus adapted to shear the metal sheet by moving at least one of the punch and the die in the sheet-thickness direction such that the punch and the die are located closer to each other (Fig. 4, Page 5 Para 5), wherein: each of the punch and the die includes an end face (Fig. 3, bottom horizontal surface of Perforation Portion 24 for the punch, and top horizontal surface of Die 30 for the die) and a side face (Fig. 3, outer side face of portions 21, 22, and 24 for the punch, and inner side face of portions 33, 34, and 32 for the die); the punch and the die are positioned such that the end face of the punch and the end face of the die do not overlap in plan view (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, the two end faces are not shown to overlap); at least one of the side face of the punch and the side face of the die includes an inclined portion (Fig. 3, First Taper Portion 22) providing a surface (Fig. 3, First Tapered Surface 23) inclined to face the metal sheet and shaped to overlap the other one of the punch and the die in plan view (Fig. 3, the First Tapered Surface 23 overlaps Die 30 in the vertical direction); and the surface provided by the inclined portion and the sheet-thickness direction form an angle not smaller than 15 degrees (Fig. 3; Page 4 Para 6- θ1 defines an angle between the inclined portion and the horizontal of 20-70 degrees, meaning an angle of 20-70 degrees would be formed between the inclined portion and the vertical, or sheet-thickness, direction).
Regarding claim 2, Joong further teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one of the side face of the punch and the side face of the die includes, in addition to the inclined portion, an extreme end portion (Fig. 3, Perforation Portion 24) contiguous with the inclined portion and located at an end (Fig. 3, end of Punch 20 closer to the Steel Plate W) adjacent to the metal sheet as determined along the sheet-thickness direction and providing a surface (Fig. 3, leftmost or rightmost vertical side of Perforation Portion 24) generally parallel to the sheet-thickness direction.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim Sun Joong (KR 20100004421 A – hereinafter Joong) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Takashi Matsuno et al. (US 20170320122 A1 – hereinafter Matsuno).
Regarding claim 3, Joong does not teach the processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein a dimension of the extreme end portion as measured in the sheet-thickness direction is not larger than 50 % of a sheet thickness of the metal sheet.
However, Matsuno teaches a processing apparatus wherein a dimension of an extreme end portion (Fig. 10a, extreme end portion defined by depth d) of a punch (Fig. 10a, Punch 26) as measured in a sheet-thickness direction is not larger than 70% of a sheet thickness of a metal sheet (Fig. 11a, Metal Sheet 30; [0100]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the device of Matsuno such that the dimension of the extreme end portion is not larger than 50% of a sheet thickness, and then modify the device of Joong such that the dimension of the extreme end portion is not larger than 50% of a sheet thickness as taught by Matsuno as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Matsuno identifies the dimension of the extreme end portion as a result effective variable that must be optimized to improve fatigue strength and burring height (Matsuno; [0127]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim Sun Joong (KR 20100004421 A – hereinafter Joong).
Regarding claim 4, Joong already teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the surface provided by the inclined portion and the sheet-thickness direction form an angle of between 20 degrees and 70 degrees (See the rejection of claim1 above). Joon does not teach that the angle is between 15 degrees and 60 degrees, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Joong such that this angle is between 15 degrees and 60 degrees as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Joong identifies the angle between the surface provided by the inclined portion and the horizontal direction, which directly dictates the angle between the surface provided by the inclined portion and the sheet-thickness direction, as a result effective variable that must be optimized to create of shape of the punch and die which reduces the impact on portions of the die (Joong; Page 4 last Para and Page 5 Para 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724