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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, “a first cut portion and a second cut portion having different shapes from each other with respect to a movement axis” does not make sense—how van a shape be different ‘with respect’ to an axis? Are the shapes being claimed as different, or are they claimed as having a different position in space? What is the extent of the “portion.” In claim 15, for example, the “cut portion” is a part of the workpiece—and not a part of the machine – which implies that claim 1 is confusing components of the machine (preamble) with the workpiece (which has “cut portions”). It is not clear whether claim 1 is reciting an element of the cutter or the work, and as such is indefinite for this reason also.
Claim 15 “wherein the first portion and the second portion are cut…” is indefinite, since the portions are parts of the cutter itself according to the claim —and according to the disclosure, e.g. 342 and 344 are cut portions which are not components of the device (“the punch comprises a first cut portion and a second cut portion”)—but are parts of a substrate being cut. The claim is indefinite with respect to what the portions are and how they are defined. The claim(s) do(es) not make sense as a result.
Regarding claim 8, “the first cut portion comprises: a first sidewall parallel to the movement axis of the punch; and a first cut surface extending from the first sidewall in a width direction of the punch, and wherein the second cut portion comprises: a second sidewall parallel to the movement axis of the punch; and a second cut surface extending from the second sidewall in the width direction of the punch.” Is a strange and unintelligible way to claim the cut portions—it is not clear what is being claimed—since the cut portion is a cutting edge, and therefore does not really ;’;exist’ or have portions in the sidewall parallel to movement and “in the width direction.” The Width direction, as best understood is left-right in , e.g. figure 3. Applicant appears to be claiming that the angled surfaces of 330 extend in the width direction—but they are at a clear and required angle with respect to the width direction, as best understood. It appears that applicant intends to claim that the angle formed by 322 on the lefty and right of the cutter are angled (differently) to each other—but instead references them with respect to the “movement axis” (claim 1) and here, alleged they extend in the “width direction,” which is unclear and indefinite.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, , 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2021/0086388).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses A punching device (figure 5, inter alia) comprising: a die (111 figure 5) configured to receive a substrate corresponding to a cutting target disposed thereon (Substrate/ work is visible in figure 5; ‘electrode 10’); a stripper spaced from and facing the die (121, 122 figure 5, inter alia), and configured to move toward the substrate to pressurize and fix the substrate (See figure 5, inter alia); and a punch configured to move toward the substrate to cut the substrate to form a scrap(130/ 131 figure 5, in process), wherein the punch comprises a first cut portion and a second cut portion having different shapes from each other with respect to a movement axis of the punch ( for example, the leading edge of the cutter and the apex of the relief of the cutter, both shown below are ‘portions’ and are cutters and have visibly different shapes, as seen below—though additional ‘portions’ may be selected, since the claim requires nothing more than that they be ‘cut portion’s per se). Portions 1/ 2 A show a linear portion and a corner portion with respect to the movement axis, as best understood. Portions 1 / 2 B show a linear shear side and a triangular or angular recess cutter edge:
PNG
media_image1.png
681
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, as either of LEE’s above identified portions is spaced from each other portion—there is per se “the first cut portion and the second cut portion are configured to cut a first portion and a second portion of the substrate, respectively, as the punch moves downward, and wherein the scrap formed by cutting the first portion and the second portion has a width between the first portion and the second portion.” As shown in , e.g. figure 5, when the punch is engaged and pushed through- the perimeter of the punch cuts around the whole punch scrap portion.
Regarding claim 3, Lee more narrowly meets claim 3’s requirement that “a timing at which the first portion is cut and a timing at which the second portion is cut are different from each other.” With reference to Portions 1 and 2 B above—since they are spaced vertically relative to each other.
Regarding claim 4, in like fashion with claim 3’s requirement discussed above, Lee discloses “wherein the timing at which the first portion is cut and the timing at which the second portion is cut are different from each other according to a height difference between sidewalls of the first cut portion and the second cut portion” since as shown in Portions 1 and 2 B supra, the walls are at different ‘height’ relative to the stroke direction of the punch.
Regarding claims 15-17, the same above showing of a punch mechanism clearly reads and anticipates the method claimed therein. The clause in claim 17 “such that the scrap is discharged in an inclined state.” Is met according to figure 5, which shows a bend in and incline of the scrap portion being punched.
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses further “the stripper has a punch accommodation portion configured to accommodate the punch, and wherein the punch accommodation portion has a shape of a through-hole through which the punch is configured to be inserted via the stripper” because as seen in e.g. figure 11, the stripper portions conform to each lateral side of the cutter—forming a through hole per se—configured for use with the cutter punch.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5-7, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as set forth above.
It has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141. Here, the difference between the disclosure of Lee and the claims 5-7 and 18-20 IS JUST THE SELECTION OF AN APPROPRIATE SIZE. In the context of a punching tool—the designer must make the punch itself strong enough to be suitable for punching the material of a workpiece that has been selected. Here, applicant has not specified in the claims any particular workpiece, or any overall sizes for the device in general. Clearly this shows that the selection of the size of the device as a whole (and the subcomponent size) is the type of routine selection that must be achieved to have a workable punch. In that context, it is obvious to select the gap between the punch portions to be 4 times wider than the height difference. (It would also be obvious to have the opposite—have the gap between portions be ¼ the height difference) This is because neither behaves unexpectedly with respect to the other—there is not a meaningful functional difference that is apparent whether the height difference is 1mm, 10mm, or even 1 meter—depending on the overall stroke and size of the punch machine. The same with the distance between the “first” and “second” cutting portions—they are in the claim arbitrary selected parts of the cutter as a whole—and as such, there is no claim limitation preventing the selection of nearer or farther gaps between them- or the adjustment of their overall size within manufacturing tolerance and for the workpiece which has been desired to be cut. For an electrode plate a height gap of 1mm or 10mm seems reasonable—for a large piece of 1 inch thick steel as a workpiece, a 0.5 meter gap may be reasonable. The claim breadth and prima facie reasons for selecting sizes shows that the claims are obvious, in that the selected ranges are not outside those workable or apparent to those of ordinary skill.
Claim(s) 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugimoto (US 5,762,373) and Sano (US 5,235,881).
Regarding claim 8—Lee shows 8. The punching device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first cut portion comprises: a first sidewall parallel to the movement axis of the punch; and a first cut surface extending from the first sidewall in a width direction of the punch, and wherein the second cut portion comprises: a second sidewall parallel to the movement axis of the punch; and a second cut surface extending from the second sidewall in the width direction of the punch as best understood—as shown in figure 15, where portion 2 A and portion 1 B are considered to be first and second portions—e.g. the same positions in applicant’s idea of a punch as best understood. IN each instance, the surface marked 131 figure 15 is the first sidewall for the second portion (portion 2 A), and the right undersurface of 131 a shown in figure 15 is the ‘second cut surface extending in a width direction’ in the same manner as applicant’s punch. This understanding appears (As best understood) to render the first and second portions not “different” with respect to the movement axis—as set forth in claim 1. The idea of making the left and right portions of a punch have different heights with respect to each other is old and known—as this provides a distribution of punching force over time—first one portion strikes and then another portion strikes. This is seen broadly in Lee itself, as the perimeter of the punch changes as shown at Portion 2 B annotated above—that is, the height of the punch is shown to vary around the perimeter. This is also shown in Sugimoto (US 5,762,373) at figure 7, which shows left and right sides of machining punch 32 at two different heights. Figure 8 shows a different forming punch with different left and right angular contours at the tip of punch 33. Sugimoto therefore shows that in the punch forming arts, it is known to adjust the geometry of the tip of a punch to control the timing of the forces being applied to the workpiece, in order to space those forces in time during a punch stroke. Sano teaches similarly in the punching arts—a punch blade which uses different angles of chamfer at the left and right part of a punching tool, as seen at 13, 14 figure 5. This is directly contrasted in Sano by “prior art” figure 8, showing symmetry in the punch sides. The chamfer (angle) adjustment permits reduction in burr formation – Column 1 line 13, inter alia. Column 2 line 9+.
In that context, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the height of the right and left punch edges of Lee, as taught by Sugimoto, and to change the left and right relief angle of Lee as taught by Sano—since doing so spaces the forces of the punch stroke in time, since doing so will have a tendency to reduce burrs as disclosed in Sano.
Regarding claim 10, further, the combination discussed above of Lee with Sano and Sugimoto results in each of an angle between the first sidewall and the first cut surface of the first cut portion and an angle between the second sidewall and the second cut surface of the second cut portion is less than 90 degrees, and wherein the first cut surface and the second cut surface are recessed toward an inside of the punch, as seen in figure 15 of lee, the relief of the face of the cutter shows an angle less than 90 degrees- and the selection is obvious in light thereof, and in light of the fact that those of ordinary skill would be motivated by the discussed teachings of Sano and Sugimoto to spread the timing of the punctures to reduce burr likelihood.
Claim(s) 9, 11, 12, and 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over Lee in view of Sugimoto (US 5,762,373) and Sano (US 5,235,881) as applied to claims 8, 10 above, and further in view of Wanner (US 4,739,687).
Regarding claim 9, applicant requires “wherein each of an angle between the first sidewall and the first cut surface of the first cut portion and an angle between the second sidewall and the second cut surface of the second cut portion is 90 degrees.” Appearing to intend claiming a stepped punch – as seen in applicant’s figure 6, for example. Lee shows an embodiment more akin to applicant’s figure 4, which is obvious in light of the above combination of Sano, Sugimoto and Lee. The difference is that Lee has angled relief punch faces, where applicant’s figure 6 embodiment is stepped.
This is not a patentable difference in the punch arts, since stepped punches are old and well known as evidenced below:
Wanner (US 4,739,687) shows two 90 degree punching surfaces 20, 26 at different punch heights on the left and right (top and bottom as oriented in figure 1) of the punch, with respect to the movement axis thereof. This is for the same purpose as disclosed above—to distribute the force of action of cutting in time relative to the punch stroke (See Abstract, inter alia).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the faces of the bottom of the punch of Lee to include perpendicular portions, such as those disclosed in Wanner at 20 and 26, since that will be one aspect of controlling the force applied during a punch stroke, which is of apparent interest to those of ordinary skill, as shown in Wanner, Lee, Sano, and Sugimoto.
Regarding claim 11, (claim 8), The combination treating claim 9 also reads on claim 11—because the obviousness of selecting each type of angle and flat has been shown. Claim 11 requires “wherein each of an angle between the first sidewall and the first cut surface of the first cut portion and an angle between the second sidewall and the second cut surface of the second cut portion is less than 90 degrees, and wherein at least one of the first cut surface or the second cut surface is recessed toward an inside of the punch.” Which appears to read on Lee—as the angles of the inside walls formed with the outside walls are acutely angled. Additionally, Wanner shows using flat portions (90 degrees at the cut interface portion) and Sano shows oblique angles between the leading portion of the 13 or 14 and the side surfaces of 11. All the angles are shown in the art, and are therefore selectable by those of ordinary skill to achieve the desired lower burr formation disclosed, which are adjusted angles based on the material being punched (for example) among other ordinary implementation type adjustments that those of ordinary skill are expected to be able to do.
Regarding claim 12, see the rejection and explanation of claim 11— having a “first cut portion is 90 degrees or more, and wherein an angle between the second sidewall and the second cut surface of the second cut portion is less than 90 degrees.” is just the selection of known angle types from those known angle types which are all disclosed as being useful in punch tips (flat/ acute and oblique are shown in the cited references)
Regarding claim 14, in Lee in view of the above discussed modifications which are obvious-- the die comprises a discharge portion extending in a direction corresponding to the punch accommodation portion to communicate with the punch accommodation portion, and wherein the scrap is cut to be discharged through the discharge portion in an inclined state. (This is one known state for punch slugs to be presented in discharge—as reflected in the Sano figure 5. While flat punchings are broadly known – as in Lee, the angled type are also plainly used as shown in e. g. Sano.) the selection of the angle of discharge is a natural outflow of the geometry of the punch, which as shown above is routinely modified to have higher left and right sides, etc. as in Sano, Sugimoto, and Wanner
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M MICHALSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6752. The examiner can normally be reached Typically M-F 6a-3:30p East Coast Time.
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.
SEAN M. MICHALSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/SEAN M MICHALSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724