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 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Anagnostopoulu fails to disclose a second bending unit upstream of a first bending unit wherein a second bending plane of the second bending unit is inclined with respect to a first bending plane of the first bending unit.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the indicated reference numerals designating the first bending unit and the second bending unit were mistakenly reversed, it is clear to one having ordinary skill in the art that Anagnostopoulu meets the claimed invention and therefore the rejection is maintained with the designated reference numerals for the first and second bending units corrected. With regards to the incorporation of the claimed subject matter of claim 7 into claim 1, Applicant has failed to provide specific arguments with regards to the 103 rejection originally used to reject the limitations of claim 7, therefore the rejection is maintained as it applies to amended claim 1 given the same limitations are not found in claim 1.
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) 1-2 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anagnostopoulu (US 5,088,310).
In reference to claim 1, Anagnostopoulu discloses an apparatus for bending oblong metal products (rod 6) comprising a movement device (2) able to move the products along a feed axis (x) and a first bending unit (7) provided with a bending device (8, 9) configured to bend one or more products (6) at a time one the same first bending plane (EZHθ) with different bending radii [see figure 1; col. 2 lines 16-21], the apparatus further comprises at least one distinct second bending unit (3) disposed upstream of the first bending unit (7), the second bending unit being provided with a second bending device (4, 5) configured to bend the products (6) on a same second bending plane (ABΓΔ), inclined with respect to the first bending plane (EZHθ), with different bending radii [see col. 2 lines 1-26; figures 1-2].
Anagnostopoulu discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the apparatus includes a third bending unit.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a third bending unit, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art [see St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a third bending device in order to form various 3D bending in the product, since the mere duplication of the essential working parts is within the realm of one having ordinary skill in the art.
In reference to claim 2, the first bending plane (EZHθ) is horizontal and orthogonal with respect to the second bending plane, as seen in figure 1.
In reference to claim 9, Anagnostopoulu discloses a method to bend oblong metal products (6) comprising a movement step, in which a movement device (2) moves one of the products (6) at a time forward along a feed axis (x) [see col. 1 lines 61-68], and a first bending step, in which a first bending unit (3) performs one bend by means of a first bending device (4, 5) distinct from each other, on a same first bending plane with different bending radii, characterized in that it comprises a second bending step, in which a second bending unit (7) performs one bend by means of a second bending device (8, 9), distinct from each other, on a same second bending plane, inclined with respect to the first bending plane with different radii [see col. 1 line 61- col. 2 line 27; figures 1-2].
In reference to claim 10, each bending device is provided with a central contrast pin, respectively, a bending support mounted coaxial and rotatable with respect to the contrast pin, and a bending pin (4, 5, 8, 9) mounted peripherally on the spindle, as seen in figure 1.
2. Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anagnostopoulu in view of Del Fabro (WO 2009/135845).
In reference to claim 4, Anagnostopoulu discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the first and second bending units are provided respectively with first and second support plates movable in a direction of adjustment.
However, Del Fabro teaches of a bending unit having a plurality of bending devices and a support plate in which the bending devices are installed thus that rotation of the support plate allows changing the bending device into the bending position to bend a rod with different bending devices [see figure 1; abstract].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bending units of Anagnostopoulu to be provided on a movable support plate with a plurality of bending device for the purpose of providing for a variation in bending of the rod by different bending devices.
It is noted that modifying the support plates of Anagnostopoulu with the support plate and bending devices as taught by Del Fabro will result in the support plates being movable respectively in a first and a second direction of adjustment which are inclined with respect to each other and orthogonal to the feed axis in order to align respectively one of the first and second bending devise with the feed axis.
In reference to claim 5, as best understood, the combination further discloses a fixed support plane (ABΓΔ) disposed horizontal and having two opposite and parallel leading edges, the first support plate being coplanar to the support plate and installed in an aperture made on the latter, the second support plate being orthogonal to the support plane and installed externally with respect to the perimeter thereof, in correspondence with one of the leading edge [second support plate is mounted on body 12].
3. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anagnostopoulu in view of Sasada et al (US 2023/0086958).
In reference to claim 6, Anagnostopoulu discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein holding devices are disposed upstream and/or downstream of the bending units.
However, Sasada et al teaches of a bending unit having a holding device (6) upstream of a bending device for the purpose of holding one end of the product so as not to move during a bending operation [see paragraph 0027; figure 1].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bending devices of Anagnostopoulu to include a holding device, as taught by Sasada et al, in order to prevent movement of the product during a bending operation.
4. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anagnostopoulu in view of Del Fabro (US 5,375,447).
In reference to claim 8, Anagnostopoulu discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the movement device slides along a guide member and includes an arm and a gripping head.
However, Del Fabro et al teaches of an apparatus for bending products comprising of a guide member (25) in which an arm (24) with a gripping head (12) mounted at one end of the arm is slidably mounted thereon for positioning and holding the product during a bending operation [see col. 5 lines 56-61; figures 1-2].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the movement device of Anagnostopoulu with the movement device including an arm and gripping head that slides along a guide member, as taught by Del Fabro, in order to allow for accurate positioning and holding of the products.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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
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