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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 7/23/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 15-23 and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Groups II and III, respectively, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/23/2026.
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.
Claims 10 and 32 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the data" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the data" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 12, 14, 25, 29, 30, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rees et al. EP 0227429 A2. EP 0227429 A2 is a published patent henceforth to be referred to as the Rees patent.
Regarding claim 1, Rees discloses a rotary draw machine to facilitate bending a tube to a target bend angle at a bend location defined between leading and trailing tangents of the tube (Rees Para [0001]: This invention relates to a numerically controlled bending machine for metallic tube or rod workpieces), comprising a die-set (Rees – 14,15; FIG. 1) to receive the tube and defining a rotary bend die (Rees – 14) that is actuatable rotatable to bend the tube (Rees Para [0006]: the bend head being operated to rotate the bend former); a linear carriage assembly (2,3,10; FIG. 1) pivotably coupled to the die-set (Rees – 14,15) to support the tube and feed the tube to the die-set (Rees – 14,15) via the leading tangent; a first rotation sensor (Rees – 35; FIG. 1) positioned to sense rotation of the tube at the leading tangent; a second rotation sensor (Rees – 36; FIG. 1) positioned to sense rotation of the tube at the trailing tangent; and a controller (Rees Para [0006]: a numerically-controlled bending machine for tube or rod workpieces) operably coupled to the die-set (Rees – 14, 15)(Rees Para [0033]: The control system then bends the tube by successively actuating the air cylinder l7 to clamp the tube against the former l4…the clamping jaw l5 is raised in line with the tube, and the bending sequence is repeated, the whole being carried out under the control of the numerical control system.), and connected to the first and second rotation sensors (Rees – 35, 36)(Rees Para [0030]), the controller configured to cause rotation of the rotary bend die (Rees – 14) to a first die angle associated with the target bend angle to bend the tube at the bend location, cause release of the tube from the die-set to allow spring back of the tube, receive data indicative of a leading angle of the leading tangent from the first rotation sensor, after spring back of the tube, and a trailing angle of the trailing tangent from the second rotation sensor, and cause rotation of the rotary bend die, in response to the data, to a second die angle to bend the tube to at least partially compensate for spring back, the second die angle being based on the first die angle, the leading angle, and the trailing angle (See Rees Para [0030] and [0033]).
Regarding claim 2, Rees discloses the rotary draw machine, wherein the first rotation sensor (Rees – 35) is mounted to the die-set (Rees – 14,15) so as to co-move with the tube as the rotary bend die (Rees – 14) rotates.
Regarding claim 3, Rees discloses the rotary draw machine (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the second rotation sensor (Rees – 36) is mounted to the rotary draw machine so as to remain stationarily mounted during movement of the rotary bend die (Rees – 14) and the linear carriage assembly (Rees – 2,3,10).
Regarding claim 7, Rees discloses the rotary draw machine (See claim 1 rejection above), herein the second die angle is indicative of the first die angle augmented with a spring back angle (See Rees Para [0032]), and the controller is further configured to determine the spring back angle based on at least a difference between the leading angle and the trailing angle (See Rees Para [0041]).
Regarding claim 8, Rees discloses the rotary draw machine (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the controller is configured to cause release of the tube from the die-set to allow spring back of the tube by rotating the rotary bend die by a retraction angle to retract the tube to disengage the tube from the rotary bend die, the second die angle being based on the first die angle, the retraction angle, the leading angle, and the trailing angle (Rees Para [0032] to [0033]).
Regarding claim 12, Rees discloses the rotary draw machine (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the linear carriage assembly (Rees – 2,3,10) is actuatable to translate the tube along the linear carriage assembly (Rees – 2,3,10), and the controller is further configured to cause translation of the tube along the linear carriage assembly to feed the tube to the die-set (Rees – 14,15)(Rees Para [0031] to [0032]).
Regarding claim 14, Rees discloses the rotary draw machine (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the controller is further configured to determine if spring back of the tube has ended based on data received from the first rotation sensor (See Rees Para [0041]: actual bend parameters are measurable by means of linear and/or rotary encoders which in use detect information relating to actual bend parameters selected from at least one of distance between successive bends, bend plane angle between successive bends, bend angle and bend spring-back, and feed the information back to the control system for verification and/or adjustment in relation to the required bend parameters.).
Regarding claim 25, Rees discloses a kit for a rotary draw machine to facilitate bending a tube to a target bend angle at a bend location defined between leading and trailing tangents of the tube, the rotary draw machine comprising a die-set (Rees – 14,15) to receive the tube and defining a rotary bend die (Rees – 14) that is actuatable rotatable to bend the tube, the draw machine comprising a linear carriage assembly (Ree- 2,3,10) pivotably coupled to the die-set (Rees – 14,15)(See Rees FIG. 1) to support the tube and feed the tube to the die-set (Rees – 14,15) via the leading tangent, the kit comprising a first rotation sensor (Rees – 35) suitable to be positioned to sense rotation of the tube at the leading tangent; a second rotation sensor (Rees – 36) suitable to be positioned to sense rotation of the tube at the trailing tangent; and a controller (Rees Para [0006]: According to the invention, a numerically-controlled bending machine for tube or rod workpieces) suitable to be operably coupled to the die-set (Rees – 14,15)(Rees Para [0033]: The control system then bends the tube by successively actuating the air cylinder l7 to clamp the tube against the former l4…the clamping jaw l5 is raised in line with the tube, and the bending sequence is repeated, the whole being carried out under the control of the numerical control system.), and suitable to be connected to the first and second rotation sensors (Rees – 35, 36)(Rees Para [0030]), the controller configured to, when operably coupled to the die-set (Rees – 14,15) and connected to the first and second rotation sensors (Rees – 35,36), cause rotation of the rotary bend die to a first die angle associated with the target bend angle to bend the tube at the bend location, cause release of the tube from the die-set to allow spring back of the tube, receive data indicative of a leading angle of the leading tangent from the first rotation sensor, after spring back of the tube, and a trailing angle of the trailing tangent from the second rotation sensor, and cause rotation of the rotary bend die, in response to the data, to a second die angle to bend the tube to at least partially compensate for spring back, the second die angle being based on the first die angle, the leading angle, and the trailing angle. (See Rees Para [0030] and [0033]).
Regarding claim 29, Rees discloses the kit (See claim 25 rejection above), wherein the second die angle is indicative of the first die angle augmented with a spring back angle (See Rees Para [0032]), and the controller is further configured to, when operably coupled to the die-set (Rees – 14,15) and connected to the first and second rotation sensors (Rees – 35,36)(Ress Para [0030]), determine the spring back angle based on at least a difference between the leading angle and the trailing angle (See Rees Para [0041]).
Regarding claim 30, Rees discloses the kit (See claim 25 rejection above), wherein the controller is further configured to, when operably coupled to the die-set (Rees – 14,15) and connected to the first and second rotation sensors (Rees – 35,36), cause release of the tube from the die-set (Rees – 14,15) to allow spring back of the tube by rotating the rotary bend die (Rees – 14) by a retraction angle to retract the tube to disengage the tube from the rotary bend die (Rees – 14), the second die angle being based on the first die angle, the retraction angle, the leading angle, and the trailing angle (See Rees Para [0030] to [0033]).
Regarding claim 33, Rees discloses the kit (See claim 25 rejection above), wherein the controller is further configured to determine if spring back of the tube has ended based on data received from the first rotation sensor (See Rees Para [0041]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 9, 10, 11, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rees.
Regarding claim 9, Rees discloses the rotary draw machine (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the linear carriage assembly is operably coupled to the controller (Rees Para [0032]: Under the control of the programme numerical control system, the stepper motor 4 is rotated to advance the carriage 2 until the tube comes into position for the first bend.), the controller configured to, after release of the tube from the die-set, cause positioning of the linear carriage assembly relative to the die-set to facilitate bending of the tube for compensating for spring back (Rees Para [0032]).
Rees does not disclose the linear carriage assembly (Rees – 2,3,10) is actuatable pivoted to the die-set (Rees – 14,15). However, MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(A) allows for a reversal of parts, wherein movable element 11 of Rees, which is comprised of the dies set (Rees – 14,15) is pivoted to abut fixed element 10 of the linear carriage assembly of Rees to bend the tube versus the linear carriage assembly (Rees – 2,3,10) pivoting to the die-set (Rees – 14,15). A reversal of such movement has been held to be an obvious modification (In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10, Rees discloses the rotary draw machine (See claim 9 rejection above), wherein the data is indicative of the leading angle and the trailing angle after positioning the linear carriage assembly relative to the die-set (See Rees [0030]).
Regarding claim 11, Rees discloses the rotary draw machine (See claim 1 rejection above), further comprising a third rotation sensor configured to sense rotation of the linear carriage assembly (Rees – 2,3,10) relative to the die-set (See Rees Para [0016]: the movable carriage on which the collet chuck is mounted includes a tube rotary/linear encoder for detection of any discrepancy between the linear or rotational movement of the collet chuck) and connected to the die-set (See Rees Para [0037]), wherein the linear carriage assembly (Rees – 2,3,10) is operably coupled to the controller, the data is a first data, and the controller is further configured to receive second data indicative of a pivot angle between the linear carriage assembly and the die-set, and after release of the tube from the die-set, cause positioning of the linear carriage assembly relative to the die-set in response to the second data to facilitate bending of the tube for compensating for spring back (See Rees Para [0032] to [0033]).
Rees does not disclose the linear carriage assembly (Rees – 2,3,10) is actuatable pivoted to the die-set (Rees – 14,15). However, MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(A) allows for a reversal of parts, wherein movable element 11 of Rees, which is comprised of the dies set (Rees – 14,15) is pivoted to abut fixed element 10 of the linear carriage assembly of Rees to bend the tube versus the linear carriage assembly (Rees – 2,3,10) pivoting to the die-set (Rees – 14,15). A reversal of such movement has been held to be an obvious modification (In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 31, Rees discloses the kit (See claim 25 rejection above), wherein the linear carriage assembly (Rees – 2,3,10) is configured to be operably coupled to the controller (Rees Para [0032]: Under the control of the programme numerical control system, the stepper motor 4 is rotated to advance the carriage 2 until the tube comes into position for the first bend.), the controller is further configured to, when operably coupled to the die-set (Rees – 14,15) and connected to the first and second rotation sensors (Rees – 35,36), after release of the tube from the die-set, cause positioning of the linear carriage assembly (Rees – 2,3,10) relative to the die-set (Rees – 14,15) to facilitate bending of the tube for compensating for spring back (Rees Para [0030] to [0033]).
Rees does not disclose the linear carriage assembly (Rees – 2,3,10) is actuatable pivoted to the die-set to the die-set (Rees – 14,15). However, MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(A) allows for a reversal of parts, wherein movable element 11 of Rees, which is comprised of the dies set (Rees – 14,15) is pivoted to abut fixed element 10 of the linear carriage assembly of Rees to bend the tube versus the linear carriage assembly (Rees – 2,3,10) pivoting to the die-set (Rees – 14,15). A reversal of such movement has been held to be an obvious modification (In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 32, Rees discloses the rotary draw machine (See claim 31 rejection above), wherein the data is indicative of the leading angle and the trailing angle after positioning the linear carriage assembly relative to the die-set (See Rees [0030]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rees as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Twelmeier at al DE 20203583 U1. DE 20203583 U1 is a published patent henceforth to be referred to as the Twelmeier patent.
Regarding claim 4, Rees discloses the draw machine (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the first and second rotation sensors (Rees – 35,36) are rotary encoders (Rees Para [0041]), however, Rees fails to disclose each of the first and second rotation sensors defining a corresponding shaft drivably coupled to a corresponding panel that is positioned to contact the tube for measuring rotation of the tube.
Twelmeier teaches a rotary encoder (Twelmeier – 14) coupled to a panel (Twelmeier – 15,16; FIG. 3) that is in position to contact the tube. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary encoders disclosed by Rees, to include a shaft coupled to a panel that is positioned to contact the tube, as taught by Twelmeier, such that a deflection of the panel is transmitted to the rotary encoder, which in turn with generate a corresponding measuring signal to be sent to the controller (See Twelmeier Para [0060]: This deflection of the measuring elements 15 is transmitted to them via the axis A of the rotary encoder 14 and the rotary encoders 14 each generate a corresponding measuring signal which is directed to the evaluation and control unit of the bending machine 1.).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rees as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Trumpf Maschinen AT 516834 B1 (Viewed as WO 2016187633 A1). AT 516834 B1 is a published patent henceforth to be referred to as the Trumpf patent.
Regarding claim 5, Rees discloses the draw machine (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the first and second rotation sensors (Rees – 35,36) include a rotary encoder (Rees Para [0041]), however, Rees fails to disclose each of the first and second rotation sensors defining a shaft drivably coupled to a panel that is configured to adheringly contact the tube to measure rotation of the tube.
Trumpf teaches a rotary encoder (Trumpf – 36; FIG. 5) defining a shaft drivably coupled to a panel (See Trumpf FIG. 5 below), wherein the rotary encoder is arranged with a sensing element (Trumpf – 33; FIG. 5), wherein the sensing element has a flat side (Trumpf – 34; See Trumpf FIG. 5 below) that is applied to a contact surface. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary encoders disclosed by Rees, to include a shaft coupled to a panel that configured adheringly to contact the tube, as taught by Trumpf, such that deformation-related changes in the position angle of the tube being bend can be measured (See Trumpf Para [0076]).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Trumpf FIG. 5
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rees as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Trumpf Maschinen and Zhang CN 114798776 A. CN 114798776 A is a published patent henceforth to be referred to as the Zhang patent.
Regarding claim 6, Rees discloses the draw machine (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the first and second rotation sensors (Rees – 35,36) include a rotary encoder (Rees Para [0041]), however, Rees fails to disclose each of the first and second rotation sensors defining a shaft drivably coupled to a magnetic panel that is positioned to magnetically contact the tube to magnetically couple to the tube to measure rotation of the tube.
Trumpf teaches a rotary encoder (Trumpf – 36; FIG. 5) defining a shaft drivably coupled to a panel (See Trumpf FIG. 5 below), wherein the rotary encoder is arranged with a sensing element (Trumpf – 33; FIG. 5), wherein the sensing element has a flat side (Trumpf – 34; See Trumpf FIG. 5 above) that is applied to a contact surface. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary encoders disclosed by Rees, to include a shaft coupled to a panel that configured adheringly to contact the tube, as taught by Trumpf, such that deformation-related changes in the position angle of the tube being bend can be measured (See Trumpf Para [0076]).
Zhang teaches a plate (Zhang – 702; FIG. 1) that adheres with a magnet (Zhang Para [0021]: The contact point between the main frame 1 and the end plates 702 can be made of magnetic material, which can be achieved by attaching magnets to the end plates 702.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the panel taught by Trumpf, to be magnetic, as taught by Zhang, given that it is known within the art that a magnet provides a removable means for attachment.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rees as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hermes et al. US 2010/0116012 A1. US 20100116012 A1 is a published patent application henceforth to be referred to as the Hermes patent.
Regarding claim 13, Rees discloses the rotary draw machine (See claim 1 rejection above), however, Rees fails to disclose the rotary draw machine, wherein the first and second rotation sensors are mounted on carriage assemblies that allow actuatable positioning of the first and second rotation sensors to dispose the first and second rotation sensors against the tube for sensing of rotation of the tube.
Hermes teaches a sensor (Hermes – 12; FIG. 10) mounted onto a carriage assembly (Hermes – 10; FIG. 6) that allows actuatable positioning of the sensor to dispose the sensor against a rod-shaped component (Hermes Para [0041]: a tactile contour sensor 12 is mounted at the outlet of the roller in FIG. 7, which contour sensor follows the bends with a roller and measures the profile during the process.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotation sensor of the rotary draw machine, disclosed by Rees, such that the sensor is mounted on a carriage assembly to allow actuatable positioning of the sensor to dispose the sensor against the tube for sensing the contour of the tube, as taught by Hermes, such that the measurement of the tube enables a correction of the setting parameter for setting the rotary draw machine to arrive at the required bend of the tube (See Hermes Para [0041]: This enables a correction of the setting parameters for setting the machine axes to arrive at the required bending contour.).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rees as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Twelmeier at al DE 2020358 U1.
Regarding claim 26, Rees discloses the draw machine (See claim 21 rejection above), wherein the first and second rotation sensors are rotary encoders (Rees Para [0041]), however, Rees fails to disclose each of the first and second rotation sensors defining a corresponding shaft drivably coupled to a corresponding panel that is positioned to contact the tube for measuring rotation of the tube.
Twelmeier teaches a rotary encoder (Twelmeier – 14) coupled to a panel (Twelmeier – 15,16; FIG. 3) that is in position to contact the tube. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary encoders disclosed by Rees, to include a shaft coupled to a panel that is positioned to contact the tube, as taught by Twelmeier, such that a deflection of the panel is transmitted to the rotary encoder, which in turn with generate a corresponding measuring signal to be sent to the controller (See Twelmeier Para [0060]: This deflection of the measuring elements 15 is transmitted to them via the axis A of the rotary encoder 14 and the rotary encoders 14 each generate a corresponding measuring signal which is directed to the evaluation and control unit of the bending machine 1.).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rees in view of Twelmeier as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Trumpf Maschinen AT 516834 B1.
Regarding claim 27, Rees discloses the draw machine (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the first and second rotation sensors (Rees – 35,36) include a rotary encoder (Rees Para [0041]), however, Rees fails to disclose each of the first and second rotation sensors defining a shaft drivably coupled to a panel that is configured to adheringly contact the tube to measure rotation of the tube.
Trumpf teaches a rotary encoder (Trumpf – 36; FIG. 5) defining a shaft drivably coupled to a panel, wherein the rotary encoder is arranged with a sensing element (Trumpf – 33; FIG. 5), wherein the sensing element has a flat side (Trumpf – 34; FIG. 5) that is applied to a contact surface. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary encoders disclosed by Rees, to include a shaft coupled to a panel that configured adheringly to contact the tube, as taught by Trumpf, such that deformation-related changes in the position angle of the tube being bend can be measured (See Trumpf Para [0076]).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rees as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Trumpf Maschinen and Zhang.
Regarding claim 28, Rees discloses the draw machine (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the first and second rotation sensors (Rees – 35,36) include a rotary encoder (Rees Para [0041]), however, Rees fails to disclose each of the first and second rotation sensors defining a shaft drivably coupled to a magnetic panel that is positioned to magnetically contact the tube to magnetically couple to the tube to measure rotation of the tube.
Trumpf teaches a rotary encoder (Trumpf – 36; FIG. 5) defining a shaft drivably coupled to a panel, wherein the rotary encoder is arranged with a sensing element (Trumpf – 33; FIG. 5), wherein the sensing element has a flat side (Trumpf – 34; FIG. 5) that is applied to a contact surface. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary encoders disclosed by Rees, to include a shaft coupled to a panel that configured adheringly to contact the tube, as taught by Trumpf, such that deformation-related changes in the position angle of the tube being bend can be measured (See Trumpf Para [0076]).
Zhang teaches a plate (Zhang – 702; FIG. 1) that adheres with a magnet (Zhang Para [0021]: The contact point between the main frame 1 and the end plates 702 can be made of magnetic material, which can be achieved by attaching magnets to the end plates 702.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the panel taught by Trumpf, to be magnetic, as taught by Zhang, given that it is known within the art that a magnet provides a removable means for attachment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARLINGTON N IBEKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-2474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4:00pm.
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.
D.N.I.
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
