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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/03/2026 has been entered.
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 1, 3, 8-10, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang (CN 2785751 Y and Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Huang shows a punching die (only Figure 1), comprising:
a mount (2) having a hollow interior (see a through opening of the clamping block 2) ;
an insert (3, Figure 1) accommodated in a front end of the mount, the insert defining a through hole of the punching die (see Figure 1, for receiving a punch 8);
a shank (see Figure 1 below) extending from a rear end of the mount, the shank being configured for fixing the punching die to a pressing tool (1), wherein the shank extends along a center axis of the through hole and has an outer diameter smaller than an outer diameter of the mount (see Figure 1 below); and
a lateral opening (the discharging opening 11, Figure 1) formed in a side wall of the mount between the insert and the shank, the lateral opening being configured for removing a punched slug from the hollow interior of the mount (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Huang shows that the insert (3) is clamped into a recess of the mount (a top opening of the clamping block 2, see the second last paragraph of the translation “a die 3 is fixed on the die clamping block 2” that means it is clamped within the top opening), and wherein the insert is formed so as to establish an interference fit in the recess (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Huang shows that the through hole has an undercut (see Figure 1 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
556
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Huang shows 1 punching tool (1, Figure 1 above), comprising the punching die according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Huang shows a method for punching holes into high-strength car body panels (automobiles), comprising:
punching a first hole with the punching die (see the discussion of claim 1); and thereafter exchanging the insert for a new insert and punching a second hole (see the last page of Translation, the first paragraph “The convex and concave dies of each type of punching unit can be quickly changed from one punching size to another punching size…. they are widely used in automobiles, agricultural machinery, elevators, switches, electric welding machines, household appliances and other industries.”.
Regarding Claim 14, Huang shows that the shank includes a fastening portion at a free end of the shank configured for fixing the punching die to the pressing tool (see Figure 1 above).
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.
Claims 2-8, 13, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Sakamoto (US 2001/0054344).
Regarding claim 2, Huang shows all of the limitation as stated above, however, it is not clear whether structure of the insert (die 3 of Huang) is a ring or not.
Sakamoto shows an insert (5) is a ring having an expandable ring-shaped chamber 14 for mounting and securing the insert into a clamping block or a holder 14 (see the die 5 in figure 1B; it is circular shape and has a central hole).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the die of Huang to be a ring, as taught by Sakamoto, in order to insert and fit into the clamping block (as seen in Figure 1 A of Sakamoto).
If one argues that Sakamoto’s insert is NOT a ring because it has a rectangular hole.
Examiner takes Official Notice that it has long been known that the insert (die) can be a ring with a circular hole. Examples can be provided if challenged, as they are numerous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to have the die or insert to be a ring including a circular hole, in order to allow to punch circular holes into workpieces.
Regarding claim 3, the modified die of Huang shows that the insert is clamped into a recess of the mount (13a, Figure 1A of Sakamoto), and wherein the insert is formed so as to establish an interference fit in the recess (Figure 1A of Sakamoto shows the die 5 is an interference fit in the recess or hole 13a).
Regarding claim 4, the modified die of Huang shows that the recess includes a circumferential groove (a seat 13b, Figure 1A of Sakamoto) in which an elastic ring accommodated (Para. 18 “the chamber 14 is a ring-shaped container”. Please read an entire of the Para. 18 for “elastic”).
Regarding claim 5, the modified die of Huang shows that the insert is made of a harder material than the mount (see Figure 1A of Sakamoto shows the insert is the die 5 and the chamber 14 is an elastic ring and see Para. 18 of Sakamoto “The peripheral wall section 14a on the inner peripheral side can be elastically expanded toward an inner diameter side of the chamber 14 under the pressure of the working fluid 16 inside the chamber 14” that is an inherent material less hardness than a material of the die),
Regarding claim 6, the modified die of Huang shows that the insert is configured so as to be removable from the mount (Para. 23 of Sakamoto “remove the die 5, the die 5 can be replaced with new one…” and also see the discussion in claim 10 above).
Regarding claim 7, the modified die of Huang shows that the recess is in a form of a counterbore with a collar engaging below the insert (see Figure 1A of Sakamoto below, the counterbore is for the insert 5 seat therein formed a collar).
Regarding claim 8, the modified die of Huang shows that the through hole has an undercut (Figure 1A of Sakamoto below).
PNG
media_image2.png
559
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, the modified die of Huang shows all of the limitations as stated above including the lateral opening (see Huang’s Figure 1), but it is generally rectangular with rounded corners.
Since the applicant had not pointed out the criticality of why the lateral opening should be generally rectangular with rounded corners (Applicant’s specification does not mention the generally rectangular with rounded corners. It appears that the shape of the lateral opening is NOT criticality).
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the lateral opening of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, including a generally rectangular with rounded corners. Furthermore, the shape of the lateral opening is merely a recognized equivalent way, since applicant has not disclosed that having any specific shape (generally rectangular with rounded corners) of the lateral opening solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the circular lateral opening would perform equally well while being constructed of a generally rectangular with rounded corners. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey etal., 149 USPQ 47. Since a change in shape of a lateral opening involves only routine skill in the art for easily removing the slug.
Regarding claim 16, the modified die of Huang shows that the insert protrudes from the mount (Figure 1 of Huang or Figure 1A of Sakamoto), wherein the insert defines an engagement surface for a workpiece, wherein the through hole includes a circular cylindrical section followed by a conical undercut (see the zoom-in in Figure 1 of Huang, portion of the undercut is conical since it is concave), and wherein a side wall of the conical undercut extends at an angle of 10 to 20° relative to the center axis (see the zoom-in in a portion of Figure 1 of Huang below, the angle is about 20 degrees relative to the center axis).
Since the applicant had not pointed out the criticality of why the undercut angle should be 20-100 degrees (Applicant’s specification does not mention the undercut angle. It appears that the undercut angle ranging 10-20 degrees is NOT criticality).
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the undercut angle between the claimed ranges (10-20 degrees relative to the center axis) because discovering an optimum value above would have been a mere design consideration based on characteristics of sizes and shapes of slug and a property of the slug material. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement depending on the characteristics of the machines. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art depending on the slug or waste sizes to be discharged. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. These are known results effective variables (if it is small slug, the undercut angle might be needed a small undercut angle and if the large slug, it might need a large undercut angle for easily discharging slug out the die), depending on the size of the waste or slug to be discharged.
PNG
media_image3.png
405
738
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Achler (US 3765285 A).
Regarding claim 15, Huang shows all of the limitation as stated above, however, it is not clear whether the mount has a circular cylindrical shape.
Achler shows a die mount (a die button 70, Figure 14) has a circular cylindrical shape.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the mount of Huang to be a circular cylindrical shape, as taught by Achler, since this is known alternative way for the same purpose.
Since the applicant had not pointed out the criticality of why the mount should be a circular cylindrical shape (Applicant’s specification does not mention the circular cylindrical shape being critical. It appears that the shape of the mount is NOT criticality).
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the mount of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, including a circular cylindrical shape. Furthermore, the shape of the mount is merely a recognized equivalent way, since applicant has not disclosed that having any specific shape (a circular cylindrical shape) of the mount solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the mount shape of Huang would perform equally well while being constructed of a circular cylindrical shape. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey etal., 149 USPQ 47. Since a change in shape of the mount involves only routine skill in the art for easily handling and doing so would be to provide a desired aesthetic to the mount.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See the new art.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM 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, 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 7/10/2026
Prosecution Insights