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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claim 10, Applicant argues that “Matsuda’s apparatus does not involve a calibration die passing a punch shoulder in a flangeless-portion context at all. Matsuda’s pressing process involves extensions being pressed into step portions for thickness increase which is structurally different mechanism that does not give rise to the specific gap-control problem addressed by the claimed range.” Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection. The claim limitation states: “the calibration die passes by the punch shoulder of the calibration punch, at least in the region of the flange-less portion of the metal preform, with a minimum possible gap corresponding to between >0% and 20% of the material thickness of the sheet, before the final forming is completed.” It is noted that the claim does not define what the material thickness is so the recited range is of an unknown material thickness. Therefore, since there is a gap between Matsuda’s die and punch, as seen in at least Figure 10, and considering it has been held obvious to discover optimum ranges in view of In re Aller, as detailed below, the claim limitation would be met because it requires unknown workpiece parameters.
With regards to the 112 rejections of claim 14, the rejections are respectfully maintained and it is noted Applicant has not addressed them in the amendments nor Remarks.
With regards to the art rejections of claim 14, Applicant argues that Matsuda does not discloses “a shoulder that received the edge of an opening preform for compressive stress superposition during calibration.” Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection as Matsuda is considered to disclose a shoulder (element 172, as seen in Figure 10) as claimed. It is noted that the present invention can be considered to have two shoulders (or step portions), as seen in Figure 4; however, the claim does not currently set forth such as structural distinction.
With regards to the art rejections of claim 14, Applicant argues that Yoshitome does not disclose the claimed shoulder either. Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection as Yoshitome is considered to disclose a shoulder (element 178, as seen in Figures 5, 8, 9) as claimed. It is noted that the present invention can be considered to have two shoulders (or step portions), as seen in Figure 4; however, the claim does not currently set forth such as structural distinction.
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 14-18 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 14 recites: “wherein the metal preform is configured as an open profile with an opening and in its longitudinal extent has at least one flangeless portion and, at least in regions, surplus sheet material… wherein the surplus sheet material in the metal preform is compressed by the relative movement between the calibration punch and the calibration die; wherein the metal preform is positioned on the calibration punch with its opening at the bottom.” Wherein statements are used to further define previously set forth elements. In this case, a wherein statement is used to further define an element (metal preform) that was not previously, positively set forth, which makes it unclear if the recited element is required by the claimed apparatus. The claim language currently appears to define the device based the how the workpiece is formed – the workpiece is not positively recited. It is suggested in order to overcome the 112 rejections to define the device by setting forth the structural elements of the device itself.
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 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuda et al. (hereafter “Matsuda”)(US 2008/0299352).
With regards to claim 14, Matsuda discloses a device for producing a sheet metal part, the device comprising:
at least one preform tool (tool is implicit in press-molding a plate-shaped blank, paragraph 0071) for preforming a sheet into a metal preform (120), wherein the metal preform is configured as an open profile with an opening and in its longitudinal extent has at least one flangeless portion and, at least in regions, surplus sheet material, as seen in at least Figure 1,
at least one calibration tool for final forming of the metal preform into a sheet-metal part, as seen in at least Figure 10, wherein the calibration tool comprises at least one calibration punch (170/270) and at least one calibration die (160/260), wherein the surplus sheet material in the metal preform is compressed by the relative movement between the calibration punch and the calibration die; wherein the metal preform is positioned on the calibration punch with its opening at the bottom,
wherein the calibration punch has at least one punch shoulder (172/272) which is provided at least in the flangeless portion of the metal preform, such that by the relative movement, the edge of the metal preform present at least in the flangeless portion can be brought into contact with a punch shoulder of the calibration punch, can rest thereon and be pressure-loaded, wherein the calibration punch is arranged stationarily and the calibration die movably in the calibration tool, as seen in at least Figure 10.
With regards to claim 15, Matsuda discloses wherein the calibration punch has at least one adjustable insert (292) which is arranged in the calibration punch and can be spaced from the calibration punch.
With regards to claim 18, Matsuda discloses wherein the device is integrated in at least a pressing line [paragraph 0240].
Claims 14-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshitome et al. (hereafter “Yoshitome”)(US 2007/0125149).
With regards to claim 14, Yoshitome discloses a device for producing a sheet metal part, the device comprising:
at least one preform tool (100) for preforming a sheet into a metal preform, wherein the metal preform is configured as an open profile with an opening and in its longitudinal extent has at least one flangeless portion and, at least in regions, surplus sheet material, as seen in at least Figure 4,
at least one calibration tool (150) for final forming of the metal preform into a sheet-metal part, as seen in at least Figure 5, wherein the calibration tool comprises at least one calibration punch (lower elements in Figure 5) and at least one calibration die (upper elements in Figure 5), wherein the surplus sheet material in the metal preform is compressed by the relative movement between the calibration punch and the calibration die; wherein the metal preform is positioned on the calibration punch with its opening at the bottom, as seen in Figure 5,
wherein the calibration punch has at least one punch shoulder (178) which is provided at least in the flangeless portion of the metal preform, such that by the relative movement, the edge of the metal preform present at least in the flangeless portion can be brought into contact with a punch shoulder of the calibration punch, can rest thereon and be pressure-loaded, wherein the calibration punch is arranged stationarily and the calibration die movably in the calibration tool, as seen in at least Figure 5.
With regards to claim 15, Yoshitome discloses wherein the calibration punch has at least one adjustable insert (185) which is arranged in the calibration punch and can be spaced from the calibration punch, as seen in Figure 4.
With regards to claim 16, as best understood, Yoshitome discloses wherein the calibration die is formed in multiple pieces (180, 180, 190) and has at least one adjustable die cheek (180) that is configured to engage with at least in the flangeless portion of the metal preform, as seen in Figure 5.
With regards to claim 18, Yoshitome discloses wherein the device is integrated in at least a pressing line or press [drive device, as described in at least paragraphs 0048-0050].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10-13, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda.
With regards to claim 10, Matsuda discloses a method for producing a sheet-metal part, wherein the method comprises:
preforming a sheet (100) into a metal preform (120) in a preforming tool (tool is implicit in press-molding a plate-shaped blank, paragraph 0071), wherein the metal preform is configured as an open profile with an opening and in its longitudinal extent has at least one flangeless portion, as seen in at least Figure 1, and, at least in regions, surplus sheet material (the thickness is redistributed, such that some portions will implicitly have surplus sheet material); and
final forming of the metal preform into a sheet-metal part in a calibration tool comprising at least one calibration punch (170/270) and at least one calibration die (160/260), in which the surplus sheet material in the metal preform is compressed by a relative movement between the calibration punch and the calibration die, as seen in at least Figure 10;
wherein the metal preform is laid in the calibration tool such that its opening points downward and is positioned on the calibration punch, and that during final forming, because of the relative movement, the edge of the metal preform present at least in the flangeless portion comes into contact with a punch shoulder (172/272) of the calibration punch rests thereon and is pressure-loaded, as seen in at least Figure 10;
wherein during the relative movement, the calibration die passes by the punch shoulder (172/272) of the calibration punch, at least in the region of the flange-less portion of the metal preform, with a minimum possible gap, before the final forming is completed, as seen in at least Figure 10.
Matsuda discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the gap corresponding to between > 0 % and 20 % of the material thickness of the sheet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed gap size, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It is noted that Applicant has not disclosed that having this particular gap size provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem and since it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentable distinguish over Matsuda.
With regards to claim 11, Matsuda discloses wherein the metal preform is provided with a floor which, during preforming, is loaded with a surplus sheet material at least in the region of the flangeless portion, such that a floor region pre-curved in the direction of the opening is produced during the preforming, so that the metal preform is positioned on the calibration punch at least via the pre-curved floor region, at least in the region of the flangeless portion of the metal preform, such that the edge of the metal preform present at least in the flangeless portion is arranged above the punch shoulder, as seen in at least Figure 10.
With regards to claim 12, Matsuda discloses wherein the metal preform is provided with a floor in which, locally or in portions, embossings (unlabeled in middle figure of Figure 10; 206 in Figure 21 and 315) pointing in the direction of the opening are produced during the preforming, so that the metal preform is positioned on the calibration punch at least via the embossings such that the edge of the metal preform present at least in the flangeless portion is arranged above the punch shoulder.
With regards to claim 13, Matsuda discloses wherein the metal preform is provided with a floor, wherein during insertion of the metal preform in the calibration tool, at least a part region of the floor comes into contact with at least one adjustable insert (185) which is arranged in the calibration punch and spaced from the calibration punch on insertion of the metal preform, and the metal preform is positioned on the insert at least via the part region of the floor, at least in the region of the flangeless portion of the metal preform, such that the edge of the metal preform present at least in the flangeless portion is arranged above the punch shoulder, as seen in at least Figure 17.
With regards to claim 17, Matsuda discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the punch shoulder has a maximum extent equal to the material thickness of the inserted sheet plus > 0 to 0.35 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed shoulder size, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It is noted that Applicant has not disclosed that having this particular shoulder size provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem and since it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentable distinguish over Matsuda.
With regards to claim 19, Matsuda discloses a method for producing a sheet-metal part with reduced spring-back, the method comprising:
preforming a sheet (100) in a preforming tool tool is implicit in press-molding a plate-shaped blank, paragraph 0071) to form a metal preform (120) configured as an open profile having a floor, at least two wings extending from the floor, and an opening defined between free edges of the at least two wings, as seen in at least Figure 10, the metal preform having in its longitudinal extent at least one flangeless portion in which each of the free edges terminates without a flange, the metal preform further having, at least in regions corresponding to the at least one flangeless portion, with surplus sheet material (the thickness is redistributed, such that some portions will implicitly have surplus sheet material);
laying the metal preform in a calibration tool such that the opening of the metal preform points downward and the metal preform is positioned on a calibration punch (170/270) of the calibration tool, the calibration punch being arranged stationarily in the calibration tool, such that in the at least one flangeless portion each of the free edges is arranged above a respective punch shoulder of the calibration punch, as seen in at least Figure 10;
performing final forming by moving a calibration die (160/260) of the calibration tool in a closing direction relative to the calibration punch, as seen in at least Figure 10; and
continuing the closing movement such that each free edge in the at least one flangeless portion contacts the respective punch shoulder, rests thereon, and is pressure-loaded, as seen in Figure 10
The limitation: “whereby the surplus sheet material is compressed to achieve compressive stress superposition across at least the at least one flangeless portion of the sheet-metal part.” is not given patentable weight. Please see MPEP 2111.04 "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’” Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Matsuda discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the surplus sheet material is distributed across at least the floor such that a cross-sectional periphery of the metal preform in the at least one flangeless portion is between 0.5% and 6% longer than a cross-sectional periphery of the sheet-metal part at a corresponding location. It is noted that the workpiece parameters are all unknown. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed size, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It is noted that Applicant has not disclosed that having this particular size provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem and since it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentable distinguish over Matsuda.
Matsuda discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the gap corresponding to between > 0 % and 20 % of the material thickness of the sheet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed gap size, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It is noted that Applicant has not disclosed that having this particular gap size provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem and since it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentable distinguish over Matsuda.
With regards to claim 20, Matsuda discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the final forming produces a sheet-metal part having a wing opening angle of less than 6 degrees relative to a closing direction of the calibration die. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed angle, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It is noted that Applicant has not disclosed that having this particular angle provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem and since it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentable distinguish over Matsuda.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 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
Prosecution Insights