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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 and 14-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,076,770 B2 to Allwood. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of Allwood teach each and every element of the claims discussed below.
Regarding claim 1, Allwood teaches a method of manufacturing a formed sheet metal structure (Claim 1), comprising the steps of:
providing a sheet metal workpiece having first and second surfaces opposed to each other and at least one edge (Claim 1);
providing one or more bending tools to perform bending the workpiece to form at least a first sidewall portion defined between the edge and a basal region (Claim 1; limitation beginning “providing one or more bending tools to perform bending…” recites bending the workpiece to form at least a first sidewall portion defined between the edge and a basal region), the bending of the workpiece also forming a curved fold region in the sheet metal workpiece adjacent the first sidewall portion (Claim 1);
providing a first anvil tool with a tool surface for contact with and constraint of the first surface of the sheet metal workpiece (Claim 1);
providing a first forming tool with a tool surface for contact with and constraint of the second surface of the sheet metal workpiece (Claim 1);
contacting the sheet metal workpiece with the anvil tool and the forming tool, and progressively sliding the forming tool and the anvil tool along the curved fold region, respectively along the second surface and along the first surface, to cause shear material transfer in the curved fold region to further deform the curved fold region (Claim 1; the limitation starting “contacting the sheet metal workpiece” is interpreted as teaching this feature because the claim recites “the forming tool and/or the anvil tool,” i.e., this includes the forming tool and the anvil tool, and claim 1 also recites that the anvil tool contacts the first surface and the forming tool contacts the second surface, thus the progressive sliding of these tools is on the first and second surfaces, respectively).
Regarding claim 2, Allwood teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one edge comprises first and second edge regions (Claim 2), and wherein the method further comprises:
bending the workpiece to form a second sidewall portion respectively defined between the first and second edge regions and the basal region, and to define the curved fold region being located intermediate the first and second sidewall portions (Claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, Allwood teaches the method according to claim 2, further comprising iteratively repeating (Claim 3) steps of:
bending the workpiece to form first and second sidewall portions respectively defined between the first and second edge regions and the basal region, and the bending of the workpiece also forming to define a curved fold region intermediate the first and second sidewall portions (Claim 3);
providing a further anvil tool for contact with and constraint of the first surface of the sheet metal workpiece at the curved fold region (Claim 3);
providing a further forming tool for contact with and constraint of the second surface of the sheet metal workpiece at the curved fold region (Claim 3); and
contacting the sheet metal workpiece with further the anvil tool and the further forming tool, and progressively sliding the further forming tool and/or the further anvil tool along the curved fold region to cause shear material transfer in the curved fold region to further deform the curved fold region (Claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, Allwood teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first anvil tool and first forming tool have respective rounded tool surfaces (Claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Allwood teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first forming tool and/or the first anvil tool are progressively slid along the curved fold region in a direction away from the basal region during at least a portion of the sliding step (Claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, Allwood teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first forming tool and/or the first anvil tool are progressively slid along the curved fold region laterally to the basal region during at least a portion of the sliding step (Claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, Allwood teaches the method of manufacturing a formed sheet metal structure according to claim 1, wherein the shear material transfer occurs as: (i) material transfer from the curved fold region to at least one sidewall portion; or (ii) material transfer to the curved fold region from at least one sidewall portion (Claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, Allwood teaches the method of manufacturing a formed sheet metal structure according to claim 1 wherein the first and second sidewall portion respectively extend from the basal region to the edge of the workpiece (Claim 8).
Regarding claim 9, Allwood teaches the method of manufacturing a formed sheet metal structure according to claim 1, wherein in a cross section though the thickness of the workpiece, the curved fold region is ‘S’-shaped (Claim 9).
Regarding claim 10, Allwood teaches the method of manufacturing a formed sheet metal structure according to claim 1, further comprising the step of providing one or more bending tools to perform the step of bending the workpiece to form the sidewall portion(s) (Claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Allwood teaches the method of manufacturing a formed sheet metal structure according to claim 10 wherein the bending tool(s) comprise one or more rods, one or more rollers, or one or more gripping members (Claim 10).
Regarding claim 12, Allwood teaches the method of manufacturing a formed sheet metal structure according to claim 10, wherein the bending tool(s) constrain the sidewall portion(s) as the forming tool progressively slides over the curved fold region (Claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Allwood teaches the method of manufacturing a formed sheet metal structure according to claim 1, wherein the anvil tool and/or the forming tool are multi-part tools (Claim 11).
Regarding claim 15, Allwood teaches the method of manufacturing a formed sheet metal structure according to claim 1 including the step of providing an additional tool set to hold the edge of the workpiece at the curved fold region during deformation of the curved fold region (Claim 12).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first anvil tool with a tool surface for contact with and constraint of the first surface of the sheet metal workpiece” in claims 1 and 17; “a first forming tool with a tool surface for contact with and constraint of the second surface of the sheet metal workpiece” in claims 1 and 17; “a further anvil tool for contact with and constraint of the first surface of the sheet metal workpiece” in claim 3; “a further forming tool for contact with and constraint of the second surface of the sheet metal workpiece” in claim 3; and “bending tools to perform the step of bending the workpiece to form the sidewall portions” in claim 10.
Regarding “a first anvil tool,” this phrase recites a generic placeholder (“anvil tool”) and a function (“for contact with and constraint of the first surface of the sheet metal workpiece”) without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as anvil tool 15 (Fig. 4; Pages 13-14 of the spec) and equivalents thereof.
Regarding “forming tool,” this phrase recites a generic placeholder (“forming tool”) and a function (“for contact with and constraint of the second surface of the sheet metal workpiece”) without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as forming tool 17 (Fig. 4; Pages 13-14 of the spec) and equivalents thereof.
Regarding “further anvil tool,” this phrase recites a generic placeholder (“further anvil tool”) and a function (“for contact with and constraint of the first surface of the sheet metal workpiece”) without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as anvil tool 115 (Fig. 5; Pages 16-17 of the spec) and equivalents thereof.
Regarding “further forming tool,” this phrase recites a generic placeholder (“further forming tool”) and a function (“for contact with and constraint of the second surface of the sheet metal workpiece”) without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as forming tool 117 (Fig. 5; Pages 16-17 of the spec) and equivalents thereof.
Regarding “bending tool,” this phrase recites a generic placeholder (“bending tool”) and a function (“to perform the step of bending the workpiece to form the sidewall portions”) without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as bending tool 23 (Figs. 4-5; Pages 13-14 of the spec) and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 18 is 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.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 depends from claim 17, which is interpreted as being an apparatus capable of performing the method recited therein, which includes the apparatus having a first anvil tool and a first forming tool that are “operable to progressively slide…along the curved fold region.” Claim 18 recites “one or more further anvil tools and one or more further forming tools” and it is unclear how the further anvil and forming tools interact with the first anvil and forming tools of claim 17, i.e., is the apparatus also operable to progressively slide the further forming and anvil tools with the first forming and anvil tools or are the further forming and anvil tools used in place of the first forming and anvil tools. For the purposes of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as further forming and anvil tools are provided, but they are not required to interact with any other part of the apparatus, i.e., they do not have to be configured to contact or progressively slide with respect to the workpiece.
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.
(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 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP H09 57381 A to Ochiai.
Regarding claim 17, Ochiai teaches a sheet metal working apparatus configured to perform a method for manufacturing a formed sheet metal structure (Figs. 3-8), the method comprising:
providing a sheet metal workpiece having first and second surfaces opposed to each other and at least one edge (Figs. 1, 3 and 5; the metal sheet has first and second surfaces and at least one edge);
providing one or more bending tools to perform bending of the workpiece to form at least a first sidewall portion defined between the edge and a basal region, the bending of the workpiece also forming a curved fold region in the sheet metal workpiece adjacent the first sidewall portion (Figs. 4-5; Para. [0020]; the workpiece is bent to form the sidewalls 13 and curved fold region, as shown in Fig. 5),
the apparatus comprising:
a first anvil tool 16 with a tool surface for contact with and constraint of the first surface of the sheet metal workpiece (Figs. 6-8; Paras. [0022]-[0024]);
a first forming tool 18 with a tool surface for contact with and constraint of the second surface of the sheet metal workpiece (Figs. 6-8; Paras. [0022]-[0024]),
the apparatus being operable to bring the sheet metal workpiece into contact with the anvil tool and the forming tool, and the apparatus further being operable to progressively slide the forming tool and the anvil tool along the curved fold region, respectively along the second surface and along the first surface, to cause shear material transfer in the curved fold region to further deform the curved fold region (Figs. 6-8 show the apparatus being operated in such a way that the workpiece is in contact with the anvil tool and the forming tool, and the forming tool is progressively slid along the second surface to deform the curved fold region and the anvil tool is capable of being progressively slid relative to the first surface), and
wherein the first anvil tool and first forming tool are configured to be moveable so as to maintain (i) a fixed distance between the forming tool and the anvil tool, or (ii) a fixed force on a sheet metal workpiece disposed between the forming tool and the anvil tool (Figs. 6-8; the tools are configured to movable while maintain a fixed distance between them, i.e., the distance corresponding to the thickness of the sheet each tool is contacting).
It is noted that, as discussed in MPEP 2114, "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). As such, Ochiai teaches the structural limitations of the claimed invention even if what it does is different than the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, Ochiai teaches the sheet metal working apparatus according to claim 17 (Figs. 3-8) and further comprising one or more further anvil tools 16S2-4 and one or more further forming tools 18, 19 (Figs. 6-8; Paras. [0021]-[0024]), the one or more further anvil tools and the one or more further forming tools configured to contact the sheet metal workpiece and progressively slide along the curved fold region (Figs. 6-8; Paras. [0021]-[0024]; claim 18 is an apparatus claim, and the one or more further anvil tools and forming tools of Ochiai are capable of being progressively slid along the curved fold region).
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.
Claims 1-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochiai in view of US 2016/0158821 A1 to Fujii.
Regarding claim 1, Ochiai teaches a method of manufacturing a formed sheet metal structure (Abstract), comprising the steps of:
providing a sheet metal workpiece having first and second surfaces opposed to each other and at least one edge (Figs. 3 and 5; Para. [0005]; the sheet is a metal sheet);
providing one or more bending tools to perform bending of the workpiece to form at least a first sidewall portion 13 defined between the edge and a basal region 12, the bending of the workpiece also forming a curved fold region 15 in the sheet metal workpiece adjacent the first sidewall portion (Figs. 3-5; Paras. [0005]-[0006] and [0020]; a bending process is performed to produce a workpiece having at least a first sidewall defined between the edge and basal region and a curved fold region, as shown in Fig. 3);
providing a first anvil tool 16 with a tool surface for contact with and constraint of the first surface of the sheet metal workpiece (Fig. 6; Paras. [0021]-[0023]);
providing a first forming tool 18 with a tool surface for contact with and constraint of the second surface of the sheet metal workpiece (Fig. 6; Paras. [0021]-[0023]);
contacting the sheet metal workpiece with the anvil tool 16 and the forming tool 18, and progressively sliding the forming tool 18 along the curved fold region, along the second surface, to cause shear material transfer in the curved fold region to further deform the curved fold region (Fig. 6; Paras. [0021]-[0023]).
Ochiai fails to explicitly teach progressively sliding the forming tool and the anvil tool along the curved fold region, respectively along the second surface and along the first surface.
Fujii teaches a method of manufacturing a formed sheet metal structure including a first anvil tool 37 for contact with the first surface of the sheet metal workpiece and a first forming tool 33 for contact with the second surface of the sheet metal workpiece (Fig. 9; Paras. [0101]-[0102]), and
progressively sliding the forming tool 33 and the anvil tool 37 along the curved fold region, respectively along the second surface and along the first surface, to cause shear material transfer in the curved fold region to further deform the curved fold region (Fig. 9; Paras. [0101]-[0102]; as shown in Fig. 9A, the dies 33 and 37 slide along the first and second surfaces while the curved region is being formed, as best seen by the position of the end of the sheet in the dashed line position after the sliding has been performed).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Ochiai to include a movable anvil tool and the steps of contacting and progressively sliding the anvil and forming tools on the curved fold region as taught by Fujii so that any material can be formed into a product with sidewalls and curved fold region, thus allowing for products with decreases in weight and increases in strength (Fujii, Para. [0046]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Ochiai teaches the method according to claim 1 (Figs. 3-6), wherein the at least one edge comprises first and second edge regions (Figs. 3 and 5), and wherein the method further comprises:
bending the workpiece to form a second sidewall portion 13 respectively defined between the first and second edge regions and the basal region 12, the curved fold region 15 being located intermediate the first and second sidewall portions (Figs. 3 and 5 show the sheet including first and second sidewalls with the curved fold region between the sidewalls).
Regarding claim 3, modified Ochiai teaches the method according to claim 2 (Figs. 3-6), further comprising iteratively repeating steps of:
bending the workpiece to form first and second sidewall portions respectively defined between the first and second edge regions and the basal region, and the bending of the workpiece also forming a curved fold region intermediate the first and second sidewall portions (Fig. 4, Para. [0020]; the dies 41, 42 are used to bend the workpiece to form bend angles A, B, C, and D to create each of sidewalls, i.e., the bending is done iteratively to form each bend angle A, B, C, and D);
providing a further anvil tool 16S2-4 for contact with and constraint of the first surface of the sheet metal workpiece at the curved fold region (Figs. 7-9; Paras. [0023]-[0025]; the further anvil tools 16S2-4 are best seen in Fig. 8b);
providing a further forming tool 19 for contact with and constraint of the second surface of the sheet metal workpiece at the curved fold region (Figs. 7-9; Paras. [0023]-[0025]);
contacting the sheet metal workpiece with the further anvil tool and the further forming tool, and progressively sliding the further forming tool 19 and/or the further anvil tool 16S2-4 along the curved fold region to cause shear material transfer in the curved fold region to further deform the curved fold region (Figs. 7-9; Paras. [0023]-[0025]; as shown in Figs. 7-9, the tool 19 is slid along the surface of the sheet along the curved fold region to deform the region with further anvil tools 16S2-4 best shown in Fig. 8b).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ochiai teaches the method according to claim 1 (Figs. 3-7) wherein the first anvil tool(s) and first forming tool(s) have respective rounded tool surfaces (Fig. 6 shows the roller 18 has a rounded tool surface and the corner of die 16 has a rounded surface at the top corner where the bend is formed).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ochiai teaches the method according to claim 1 (Figs. 3-7) wherein the first forming tool and/or the first anvil tool are progressively slid along the curved fold region in a direction away from the basal region during at least a portion of the sliding step (Figs. 6-7; Figs. 7b-c shows that the forming tool 19 may be slid away from the basal region for the sliding step).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ochiai teaches the method according to claim 1 (Figs. 3-7) wherein the first forming tool and/or the first anvil tool are progressively slid along the curved fold region laterally to the basal region during at least a portion of the sliding step (Fig. 7b shows that the forming tool 19 may be slid laterally to the basal region during the sliding step).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ochiai teaches the method of manufacturing a formed sheet metal structure according to claim 1 (Figs. 3-7) wherein the shear material transfer occurs as: (i) material transfer from the curved fold region to at least one sidewall portion; or (ii) material transfer to the curved fold region from at least one sidewall portion (Fig. 7b shows that the material transfer would take place from the curved fold region to the sidewall as the forming tool 19 is moved horizontally, e.g., T3 to T4 or T5 to T6).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ochiai teaches the method of manufacturing a formed sheet metal structure according to claim 1 (Figs. 3-7) wherein the first and second sidewall portion respectively extend from the basal region to the edge of the workpiece (Fig. 5 shows that the sidewalls 13 each extend from the basal region to the edge of the workpiece).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ochiai teaches the method of manufacturing a formed sheet metal structure according to claim 1 (Figs. 3-7) wherein in a cross section though the thickness of the workpiece, the curved fold region is ‘S’-shaped (Fig. 7c shows that the curved fold region has an S-shaped cross section for at least part of the forming process).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ochiai teaches the method of manufacturing a formed sheet metal structure according to claim 1 (Figs. 3-7), further comprising the step of providing one or more bending tools 41, 42, 44 to perform the step of bending the workpiece to form the sidewall portion(s) (Fig. 4; Para. [0020]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ochiai teaches the method of manufacturing a formed sheet metal structure according to claim 10 wherein the bending tool(s) comprise one or more rods, one or more rollers, or one or more gripping members (Fig. 4; Para. [0020]; the bending tool includes one or more gripping members because the workpiece is gripped between tools 41, 42, 44).
Regarding claim 13, modified Ochiai teaches the method of manufacturing a formed sheet metal structure according to claim 2 (Figs. 3-7) wherein after working, the first and second sidewall portion(s) and the curved fold region together define a continuous wall, upstanding from the basal region (Figs. 1 and 3 show that after working the first and second sidewall portions and the curved fold region define a continuous wall, i.e., no holes or gaps, and are upstanding from the basal region 12).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ochiai teaches the method of manufacturing a formed sheet metal structure according to claim 1 (Figs. 3-8) wherein the anvil tool and/or the forming tool are multi-part tools (Fig. 8 shows that the forming tool has multiple parts, i.e., holder 17 and roller 19, and the anvil may also include multiple parts, e.g., subparts 16S2-4).
Regarding claim 15, modified Ochiai teaches the method of manufacturing a formed sheet metal structure according to claim 1 (Figs. 3-8) including the step of providing an additional tool set to hold the edge of the workpiece at the curved fold region during deformation of the curved fold region (Fig. 8 shows that an additional tool set 16S2 may be provided to hold the edge of the workpiece during deformation, i.e., the edge of the workpiece will be held against the tool 16S2 when the workpiece is pressed by tool 19).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks dated February 2, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 USC 112 and claims 1-11 and 13-16 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new rejection is made of claims 1-15 in view of US 2016/0158821 A1 and claim 18 includes new indefiniteness issues, as discussed above.
Applicant's amendments and remarks regarding the rejections of claims 17-18 under 35 USC 102 and the double patenting rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 102 rejections of claims 17-18, as discussed in MPEP 2114, "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Applicant has argued that the prior art fails to teach the apparatus of claim 17 because the claim has been amended to include the language of method claim 1. Remarks, P. 10. However, this argument is not persuasive because Ochiai teaches the structure of the apparatus claim while Applicant’s arguments are directed to what the device does.
Regarding the double patenting rejection, Applicant has indicated that a terminal disclaimer will be filed in the future.
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 MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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 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.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights