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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on September 8th, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2023146090 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on August 27th, 2024 and February 6th, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings, specifically Fig. 6, are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: BH, DC, . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference characters in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings, specifically Fig. 7A, are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: "Blank Material 1" (¶0004, Lines 8-9. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Figs. 7A-B and 8A-B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 2, Step 3, specifically Data No. 1~9 lacks a description in the Specification
Fig. 3, Step 13, specifically “Data No. 1~9” should be --Data No. 1~99-- according to the Specification (¶0052)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit
the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶0035 (Line 26), “F.C” should read --F.C.--
In ¶0036 (Line 2), abbreviations “ A/D” and CPU” need to be defined
In ¶0057 (Line 8), “pressure regulating valve 118-1” should read -- pressure regulating valve 118-2--
In ¶0058 (Line 9), “pressure regulating valve 118-1” should read -- pressure regulating valve 118-3--
In ¶0065 (Line 8), “ta product height” should read --a product height--
Throughout the Specification, some paragraphs are missing paragraph numbers
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“The assist drawing device” in Line 1 should read --An assist drawing device--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
"punch drive unit" in Claim 1 (Line 15)
"assist punch drive unit" in Claim 1 (Line16)
“assist pressure control unit” in Claim 1 (Line 26), Claim 2 (Line 4), Claim 3 (Line 5), Claim 4 (Line 5), Claim 5 (line 5), Claim 6 (line 5), Claim 7 (line 5), Claim 8 (line 5)
“punch position information acquisition unit” in Claim 2 (Line 2)
“assist pressure information acquisition unit” in Claim 3 (Line 2) and Claim 4 (Line 2)
“control device” in Claim 5 (Line 2), Claim 6 (Line 2), Claim 7 (Line 2), Claim 8 (Line 2), and Claim 9 (Line 9)
“blank holder drive unit” in Claim 9 (Line 3)
“cushion pad drive unit” in Claim 9 (Line 8)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “end surfaces” in Lines 12-13 and “both end surfaces” in Line 23. It is unclear if there are 2 or more end surfaces thus rendering the claim indefinite since metes and bounds have not been established.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the control device" in Line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the actual position information" in Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3 and 4 recite the limitation "the actual assist pressure information" in Line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5-8 recite the limitation “the movement” in Line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the movement” in Line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1 and 9 recite the limitation “the assist drawing” in Line 27 and Lines 11-12, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding Claim 1, while the prior art, specifically Kergen (EP0475923A1, for text citations refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner), discloses an assist drawing device (Fig. 1), comprising: a punch (Fig. 1, Element 5), which has a shape (Fig. 1, Element 5; ¶0018) conforming to a product shape (¶0018), and is configured to be linearly reciprocated between a stroke start edge (Fig. 1) and a stroke end edge (Fig. 2); a drawing die (Fig. 1, Element 2), which has an opening (Fig. 1, Element 2; ¶0018) conforming to the product shape (¶0018), and is configured to perform drawing (¶0002) on a blank material (Fig. 1, Element 100) having a plate shape (Fig. 1, Element 100) in cooperation with the punch (Fig. 1, Element 5; ¶0002) ; a blank holder (Fig. 1, Element 3) configured to press the blank material (¶0009) against the drawing die (¶0009) at a blank holder pressure (¶0009); a punch drive unit (Fig. 1, Element 12; ¶0022) configured to drive the punch (Fig. 1, Element 5; ¶0022) and Komatsu (JPS58196125A, for text citations refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner) teaches a pair of assist punches (Fig. 2, Element 11), which are movably inserted between the drawing die (Fig. 2, Element 6) and the blank holder (Fig. 2, Element 3), and are arranged opposed to each other (Fig. 2, Element 11) so as to be capable of pressing end surfaces (Abstract) of the blank material (Fig. 2, Element 5) from opposing directions (Abstract) at an assist pressure (Abstract); and an assist punch drive unit (Fig. 2, Element 10) configured to supply the assist pressure (Abstract) to the pair of assist punches (Fig. 2, Element 11), this prior art combination or any other prior art teaches wherein the control device includes an assist pressure control unit configured to control the assist punch drive unit such that, when the assist drawing is performed, the assist pressure of the pair of assist punches reaches a target assist pressure in accordance with a position of the punch.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20150251237A1, US4571978A & WO2007102538A1 - Assist drawing device
US20160184876A1 & US20160074920A1 - Cushion pad and cushion pad control system
US4316379A & WO2004067200A1 - Pressure control system
GB1210841A - Assist punches
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALONDRA MICHELLE ORTIZ-ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9539. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5PM ET.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (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.
/A.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights