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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed April 10th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 remain
pending in the application.
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 surfaces 33 and 31 of Die 30) and a side face (Fig. 3, outer side face of portions 21, 22, and 24 for the punch, and
inner side face of portions 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 end face of the other one of the punch and the die in plan view (Fig. 3, the First Tapered Surface 23 overlaps surface 33 of 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Joong does not teach the newly amended limitation of claim 1 since the end face of the die (Fig. 3, item 30) taught by Joong in the rejection of claim 1 in the previous Non-Final Office Action did not overlap the inclined portion of the side face of the punch (Fig. 3, item 20) of Joong. The Non-Final Office Action previously referred to the top horizontal surface of item 30 as the end face of the die. However, the rejection of claim 1 has been updated to refer to the top horizontal surface of 30 in addition to surface 33 of Joong as the end surface of the die. With this modification, viewing Fig. 3 of Joong, the end surface of the die does overlap the inclined portion of the side surface of the punch. Therefore, the new rejection of claim 1 is appropriate and does teach all limitations of the amended claim 1.
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 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
Prosecution Insights