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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on May 26, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of co-pending application 18/700790 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Egawa et al (US 2016/0158914).
In reference to claim 1, Egawa et al discloses a fatigue crack growth suppressing method for a bent portion of a metal sheet for suppressing a growth of a fatigue crack in a bent portion obtained by bending the metal sheet (11), comprising
generating a compressive residual stress by applying plastic strain at least in a range from a bending start point to a bending end point on an inside of a bend of the bent portion [see paragraph 0057; stresses are altered on inner and outer surface by shot peening], at an interval of less than a sheet thickness of the metal sheet in a valley line direction of the bent portion, in a direction orthogonal to the valley line direction [see paragraph 0058; figures 1C & 13].
In reference to claim 3, Egawa et al discloses an automotive part comprising
a bent portion formed by bending a metal sheet (11) [see figure 1A; paragraph 0033], the bent portion being suppressed in growth of a fatigue crack, and
an indentation band including a series of indentations (94) obtained by needle peeing using an impact pin [it is noted that this limitation is a product by process limitation and therefore the patentability lies in the claimed structural components, i.e. indentation path, and not how the component was formed] in a direction orthogonal to a valley line direction, the indentation band being positioned at least within a range from a bending start point to a bending end point on an inside of a bend of the bent portion, and the indentations (94) provided at an interval of less than a sheet thickness of the metal sheet along the valley line direction of the bent portion [see figures 1C & 13; paragraphs 0057-0058].
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egawa et al in view of Haas et al (US 2014/0007394).
In reference to claim 2, Egawa et al discloses the compressive residual stress is generated by forming an indentation band, which is a series of indentations (94) [see figure 13], on the inside of the bent portion by a shot peening treatment, and
the shot has a radius of curvature thereof, in a cross section orthogonal to the valley line direction, equal to or less than a radius of curvature of the bent portion is used [see figure 13].
Egawa et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the compressive residual stress is generated by needle peening.
However, Haas et al teaches that it is well known in the art that shot peening, laser shock peening, needle peening, ultrasonic peening are all known equivalent peening treatments for forming compression within a workpiece [see paragraph 0007].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to generate the compressive residual stress by a needle peening treatment instead of by a shot peening treatment since these peening treatments are known equivalents in the art as taught by Haas et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Egawa et al fails to disclose generating a compressive residual stress “at an interval of less than a sheet thickness of the metal sheet in a valley line direction of the bent portion” or providing indentations “at an interval of less than a sheet thickness of the metal sheet along a valley line direction of the bent portion”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Applicant states that the “valley line direction” of Egawa et al is into the page, the Examiner notes that the claims and specification are absent to any definition defining a specific direction as the valley line direction. Therefore given the broadest reasonable interpretation the valley line direction can be interpreted as any direction. Therefore the Examiner is interpreting the valley line direction to be a direction along the bent portion and as seen in figure 13, each indentation 94 is less than the sheet thickness. Additionally it is noted that should Applicant define the valley line direction as being into the page, Egawa et al discloses the peening is performed along the entire curved (bent) part, therefore the illustrated indentions in figure 13 would extend into the page in the same pattern.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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