DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 6/25/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6 and 8-20 remain pending in the application. Claim 7 was cancelled. Claims 16-20 were withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-10 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 9-10 and 15, as they still depends on cancelled claim 7, which should be depends on claim 1, to avoid 112b issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishibe (JPH 10109125A) in view of Allen (US 2789922).
Regarding claim 1, Ishibe teaches a punching device (see Figures 3-4) comprising:
a die (7) configured to receive a substrate disposed thereon (see Figure 3);
a stripper (5) spaced apart from and facing the die, and configured to move toward the substrate to fix the substrate (see Figure 3); and
a punch (4) configured to move toward the substrate and cut the substrate, wherein the stripper comprises:
a punch accommodation portion (b) configured to accommodate the punch; and
a punching oil supply passage (a) located inside the stripper, and configured to supply a punching oil to a side surface of the punch accommodation portion (from 12 to punch, see Figure 3).
Ishibe fails to teach an air supply passage located inside the stripper, and configured to supply air to the side surface of the punch accommodation portion to remove foreign materials attached to the punch as a result from cutting the substrate.
Allen teaches a punching including an oil passage and an air supply passage located inside the stripper, and configured to supply air to the side surface of the punch accommodation portion to remove foreign materials attached to the punch as a result from cutting the substrate (see Figures 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Ishibe to add the air supply arrangement, as taught by Allen, in order better lubricant the punch (col. 1 lines 15-30 of Allen).
Regarding claim 2, modified Ishibe further teaches the punch accommodation portion has a shape of a through-hole through which the punch is configured to be inserted via the stripper (See Figure 3 of Ishibe).
Regarding claim 3, modified Ishibe further teaches one side surface of the punch accommodation portion is opened (at least opened to the passage a in Ishibe).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ishibe further teaches the punch accommodation portion comprises a plurality of side surfaces, a nozzle of the punching oil supply passage is located on a first side surface from among the plurality of side surfaces of the punch accommodation portion on the inside opening nozzle, see Figure 3), and a side surface of the punch is configured to face the first side surface (see Figure 3 of Ishibe).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ishibe further teaches the punching oil supply passage comprises a plurality of punching oil supply passages, a first nozzle of a first punching oil supply passage located on the first side surface of the punch accommodation portion, and the side surface of the punch is configured to face the first side surface (See Figure 3).
Modified Ishibe fails to teach a second punching oil supply passage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Ishibe to add additional punching oil supply passage. Since the courts have held that a duplication of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) MEPE 2144.04 VI. B.
Regarding claim 6, modified Ishibe further teaches the punching oil supply passage comprises a plurality of punching oil supply passages, a first nozzle of a first punching oil supply passage from among the plurality of punching oil supply passages is located on the first side surface of the punch accommodation portion, and the side surface of the punch is configured to face the first side surface (see Figure 3).
Modified Ishibe fails to teach a second nozzle of a second punching oil supply passage from among the plurality of punching oil supply passages is located on a second side surface from among the plurality of side surfaces of the punch accommodation portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Ishibe to add additional punching oil supply passage. Since the courts have held that a duplication of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) MEPE 2144.04 VI. B.
Regarding claim 8, Ishibe teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 above.
Ishibe fails to teach the punch comprises an air supply hole extending through the punch, and configured to supply air to a bottom surface of the punch.
Allen teaches a punching including an oil passage and an air supply passage located inside the stripper, and configured to supply air to the side surface of the punch accommodation portion, an air supply hole extending through the punch, and configured to supply air to a bottom surface of the punch (see Figures 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Ishibe to add the air supply arrangement, as taught by Allen, in order better lubricant the punch (col. 1 lines 15-30 of Allen).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ishibe further teaches the air is supplied at a pressure of an unknown value (as modified by Allen, see Figure 3-4 of Allen)
Modified Ishibe fails to teach 0.1 Mpa or more.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific value of 0.1 Mpa or more, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the device of Ishibe to have the required pressure wanted by the end user.
Regarding claim 10, modified Ishibe teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 7 above.
Modified Ishibe fails to teach the air supply passage is located below the punching oil supply passage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Ishibe to move the location of the air supply passage to any location, including the location below the punching oil supply passage. Since the courts have held that a rearrangement of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) MEPE 2144.04 VI. C.
Regarding claim 11, Ishibe teaches the stripper comprises
a punch accommodation portions configured to accommodate a first punches (see Figure 3), and
a punching oil supply passages (a) configured to supply the punching oil,
a first nozzle of a first punching oil supply passage from among the plurality of punching oil supply passages is located on a side surface of a first punch accommodation portion from among the plurality of punch accommodation portions (see Figure 3),
a side surface of a first punch is configured to face the side surface of the first punch accommodation portion (see Figure 3).
Ishibe fails to teach a plurality of punch accommodation portions, a plurality of punching oil supply passages, a second nozzle of a second punching oil supply passage from among the plurality of punching oil supply passages is located on a side surface of a second punch accommodation portion from among the plurality of punch accommodation portions, a side surface of a second punch is configured to face the side surface of the second punch accommodation portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Ishibe to add additional punch, punch accommodation portions and punching oil supply passage arrangement. Since the courts have held that a duplication of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) MEPE 2144.04 VI. B.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishibe (JPH 10109125A) in view of Allen (US 2789922) and in further view of Naito (US 4977804).
Regarding claim 12, modified Ishibe teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 above.
Modified Ishibe fails to teach the punching oil is supplied in a fixed-quantity discharge method.
Naito teaches a controller (33) which controls the amount of oil mist or the like from the dispense path in a punch (col. 5 line 64 – col. 6 line 16), which can be a fixed-quantity discharge method (as the flow rate is controlled).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Ishibe to add the control system to the fluid supply, as taught by Natio, in order to better control the flow rate of the fluid (col. 5 line 64 – col. 6 line 16 of Natio).
Regarding claim 13, modified Ishibe teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 above.
Modified Ishibe fails to teach the punching oil is supplied at a predetermined flow rate.
Naito teaches a controller (33) which controls the amount of oil mist or the like from the dispense path in a punch (col. 5 line 64 – col. 6 line 16), which can be a predetermined flow rate (as the flow rate is controlled).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Ishibe to add the control system to the fluid supply, as taught by Natio, in order to better control the flow rate of the fluid (col. 5 line 64 – col. 6 line 16 of Natio).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ishibe teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 above.
Modified Ishibe fails to teach a controller configured to adjust an amount of the punching oil, wherein the controller is configured to control a pump connected to the punching oil supply passage to supply the punching oil in proportion to a number of times the punch is raised and lowered.
Naito teaches a controller (33) which controls the amount of oil mist or the like from the dispense path in a punch (col. 5 line 64 – col. 6 line 16), a controller configured to adjust an amount of the punching oil, wherein the controller is configured to control a pump connected to the punching oil supply passage to supply the punching oil in proportion to a number of times the punch is raised and lowered (see Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Ishibe to add the control system to the fluid supply, as taught by Natio, in order to better control the flow rate of the fluid (col. 5 line 64 – col. 6 line 16 of Natio).
Regarding claim 15, modified Ishibe teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 7 above.
Modified Ishibe fails to teach a controller configured to adjust an amount of the air, wherein the controller is configured to control an air pump connected to the air supply passage to supply the air in proportion to a number of times the punch is raised and lowered.
Naito teaches a controller (33) which controls the amount of oil mist or the like from the dispense path in a punch (col. 5 line 64 – col. 6 line 16), a controller configured to adjust an amount of the air, wherein the controller is configured to control an air pump connected to the air supply passage to supply the air in proportion to a number of times the punch is raised and lowered (control the flow rate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Ishibe to add the control system to the fluid supply, as taught by Natio, in order to better control the flow rate of the fluid (col. 5 line 64 – col. 6 line 16 of Natio).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Ishibe in view of Allen fails to teach “configure to remove foreign materials attached to the punch as a result from cutting the substrate”. The examiner disagree and notes that the level of air supply to remove the foreign material is not required by the claim, therefore if the modified structure of Ishibe in view of Allen have any kind of air movement, the limitation is considered met on the broadest reasonable interpretation.
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 LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 PM.
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, Ashley Boyer 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 3/26/2026
Prosecution Insights