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 .
Pursuant to communications filed on 10/18/2024, this is a First Action Non-Final Rejection on the Merits wherein claims 1-10 are currently pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns / lines numbers or figures in the reference(s) as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Examiner has also cited references in PTO-892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because it appears figures 2-5 and 8 have been printed with a low-quality equipment as they don’t show a complete description of the drawings. For example, figures 2-5 are missing the corresponding arrows to indicate the points. Figure 8 is incomplete because the boxes and or connecting lines are missing. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected 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.
Appropriate correction is earnestly solicited.
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:
1. - a model acquisition unit …In claim 8.
2. - a primary path acquisition unit …In claim 8.
3. - a support path acquisition unit …In claim 8.
4. - a double-point processing and manufacturing unit … In claim 8.
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.
I-. Claims 1-10 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.
In the instant case:
1)-. Claim 1 recites the functional statement "A manufacturing method with double-point incremental forming […]”. This feature is not clear because it does not enable the one ordinary skill in the art to determine which technical features are necessary to perform the stated function. Appropriate correction is earnestly solicited.
2)-. Claims 1, 2 and 8 recite the term “slicing and layering”. This particular term is seen as vague and unclear and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers.
3)-. Claims 1 and 8 states to generate a support path for a "slave robot" according to the primary path and shape of the model. However, it fails to specify how the slave robot acts (e.g., whether it pushes against the opposite side, applies a reactive force, or matches the speed). Without these functional parameters, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the boundaries of the invention. Appropriate correction is earnestly solicited.
4)-. Claims 1 and 8 have a "Master" vs "Slave" functional disconnect: Generating a slave path that coordinates with a master path during double-point incremental forming is highly complex. Claiming the result without outlining the algorithmic steps or mechanical constraints needed for this coordination renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is earnestly solicited.
5)- Claims 1 and 8 are missing clamping/material constraints: Double-point incremental forming relies on precise sheet metal clamping and deformation physics. A method claim of this nature typically requires describing how the material is secured or the direction of the applied forces. Leaving these out can lead to a failure to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. Appropriate correction is earnestly solicited.
6)-. Claim 8 lacks foundational structure: The claim defines an "apparatus" but predominantly recites a method or process (acquiring, slicing, layering, generating) rather than structural physical components. Mixing structural elements ("master robot") with process steps ("slicing and layering") creates confusion over whether the claim is directed to a tangible machine or a method, rendering it indefinite. Appropriate correction is earnestly solicited.
7)-. Claims 1 and 8 have antecedent basis & vague terms issues: The phrase "according to the primary working path and the shape of the three-dimensional model for each primary working path" is circular and convoluted. It is ambiguous how exactly the support path is calculated "for each primary working path," which makes the scope of the claim unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). Appropriate correction is earnestly solicited.
8)-. Claim 8 has a vague "Method" Integration: The final clause states the part is made by "applying a double-point incremental forming method according to the primary working path and the support path”. Merging a method into an apparatus claim using "according to" does not structurally limit the apparatus in a clear, definite way. Appropriate correction is earnestly solicited.
II-. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As per claim 9, the claim recites: “An electronic device, comprising a memory, a processor and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor implements the method of claim 1 when it executes the program”. Based on the provided claim language, claim 9 is dependent upon independent claim 1, and it can be seen that claim 9 fails to further limit the manufacturing method of claim 1.
Appropriate correction is earnestly solicited.
As per claim 10, the claim recites: “A computer storage medium on which at least one executable instruction is stored, the executable instruction instructs a processor to execute the method of claim 1”. Based on the provided claim language, claim 10 is dependent upon independent claim 1, and it can be seen that claim 10 fails to further limit the manufacturing method of claim 1.
Appropriate correction is earnestly solicited.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claims 2-7, these claims are dependent upon independent claim 1, and therefore are also rejected under this section for at least containing the same deficiencies as the respective base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. A patentable subject matter is required to be directed to one of the following four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C 101: process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Regarding claim 10, this claim is directed to a computer storage medium. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. Transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim.
Therefore, it is strongly suggested to the Applicant to amend claim 10 to recite for example, A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having program code embodied therewith, the program code comprising the programming instructions for…...”.
Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent, because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure.
Appropriate correction is earnestly solicited.
Examiner notes wherein the claims have been addressed below, in view of the prior art of record, as best understood by the Examiner in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections provided herein.
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 1-2, and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cao et al (US 2013/0103177), hereinafter “Cao”.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 9, and 10, Cao a manufacturing method with double-point incremental forming / the associated manufacturing apparatus (e.g., a system (e.g., a forming system) includes first and second tools, one or more moving assemblies, and a control unit – see [0008] and figure 1) / the associated electronic device comprising a memory, a processor and a computer program stored therein and / the associated computer storage medium on which at least one executable instruction is stored (see The control unit 116 includes one or more processing units and/or modules that operate to control movements of the upper tool 104 and/or lower tool 108 relative to the sheet……. and/or other logic-based devices that perform operations based on instructions stored on a tangible and non-transitory computer readable storage medium, such as a computer memory - see [0074] and figure 1), the method comprising:
acquiring a three-dimensional model of a part to be formed (see" The input module is configured to obtain a three-dimensional model of a component to be formed from a deformable sheet by first and second tools that engage corresponding first and second opposite sides of the sheet and that move relative to the sheet to deform the sheet. The three-dimensional model includes plural three-dimensional features that protrude from at least one of the first side or second side of the sheet" in paragraph [0010] and also see "The shape of the component 200 in the X-Y plane is controlled by the motion of the forming and supporting tools 104, 108 as generated from the CAD model (or another model) and as controlled by the control unit 116 (shown in FIG. 1 )" in paragraph [0081] and figure 1, also see "The input signal 2902 can include one or more of a shape of the desired component (e.g., a Computer Aided Design, or CAD, model of a surface to be formed from the sheet)" in paragraph [0117]);
slicing and layering the three-dimensional model to obtain a plurality of 2D curve paths, and respectively generating a primary working path of a master robot according to each 2D curve path (see “[...] The three-dimensional model includes plural three-dimensional features that protrude from at least one of the first side or second side of the sheet. The equalization module is configured to an incremental depth at which the at least one of the first and second tools move toward or away from the sheet to form the features in the sheet. The incremental depth is based on a number of curves formed by intersections of the model with a set of planes oriented parallel to the sheet […]” in paragraph [0010] and figure 1, and see also "The variable initialization module 2908 can set counters of the number of features, slices (e.g., two-dimensional sections of the component to be formed), and the like, to be zero as well […] the equalization module 2910 modifies the incremental depth Δz in order to ensure smooth transitions between the features. For example, the intersection of a three-dimensional CAD surface model of the desired component with a plane (e.g., an XY plane, such as a plane having a normal in the Z direction 122) can produce one or more closed curves" in paragraphs [0119, 0120] and figures 30, 31, in combination with "[…] The point generation module is configured to determine one or more too/paths that the first and second tools follow in order to deform the sheet into the component in paragraph [0010] regarding the path generation of the master robot, i.e. the "first […] tool");
determining and generating a support path of a slave robot according to the primary working path and the shape of the three-dimensional model for each primary working path (see “[…] The point generation module is configured to determine one or more too/paths that the first and second tools follow in order to deform the sheet into the component. The point generation module also is configured to determine segments of the model that are disposed between neighboring planes in the set of planes and to determine one or more helical curves extending along the segments from an internal area of the sheet toward outer boundaries of the sheet […]” in paragraph [0010], and see also "a point generation module 2916 receives the order in which the curves of the model are to be processed and the groups of curves (e.g., with each group of curves representing the curves of the same feature). The point generation module 2916 generates helixes and toolpath points for the features […] The point generation module 2916 can determine which of the tools 104 or 108 is the supporting tool and which of the tools 108 or 104 is the forming tool” in paragraphs [0130, 0137]);
and
processing and manufacturing the part to be formed by applying a double-point incremental forming method according to the primary working path and the support path (see “The path writing module is configured to identify contact points along the one or more too/paths and directions in which the first and second tools are to move along the one or more toolpaths" in paragraph [0010], and see also "the point generation module 2916 may designate the tool 104 as the supporting tool and the tool 108 as the forming tool […] The contact point locations, toolpaths, and/or designations of which tools are the forming versus supporting tools is communicated to a path writing module 2918 of the control unit 2900" in paragraphs [0141, 0143] and figure 29).
Regarding claim 2, Cao discloses, wherein the step of slicing and layering the three-dimensional model to obtain a plurality of 2D curve paths comprises: layering the three-dimensional model along a forming direction according to a preset thickness by applying an offset on surface function, to establish a plurality of 2D curve paths (see "The incremental depth is based on a number of curves formed by intersections of the model with a set of planes oriented parallel to the sheet' in paragraph [0010] in combination with "If a constant incremental forming depth (Δz) is used (e.g., each step of adding depth to the cone 200 along the Z direction 122), by the 3rd pass, both tools 104, 108 will be at Z positions of -311z relative to the starting Z positions of the tools 104, 108" in paragraph [0079] and figure 3, and see also "The input signal 2902 can include […] an incremental depth (Δz), such as the distance that the sheet is to be deformed with each movement of one or more of the tools 104, 108, 2302, 2304 in the Z direction 122” in paragraph [0117]).
Regarding claim 4, Cao discloses, wherein the step of generating a primary working path of a master robot according to the 2D curve path comprises: dividing the 2D curve path into a plurality of discrete points at a preset interval, and establishing a series of planes according to a tangent plane direction of each discrete point in the curve, wherein the discrete points are central points of the planes; setting the center points of the planes as the moving positions of the forming tool head, and setting normal Z-axes of the planes as the forming directions of the forming tool head; and gathering the moving positions of all the discrete points in the 2D curve path and the forming directions corresponding to the moving positions to form the primary working path of the master robot (see "The path writing module is configured to identify contact points along the one or more toolpaths and directions in which the first and second tools are to move along the one or more toolpaths" in paragraph [0010] in combination with figure 4, in which "a local wall angle e is equal or approximately equal to an angle subtended to a vertical by a line segment OO' that connects centers of the two hemispherical tools 104, 108. The position of the supporting tool 108 may be is calculated according to:" equation 1, in paragraph [0082].).
Regarding claim 5, Cao discloses, wherein the step of determining and generating a support path of a slave robot according to the primary working path and the shape of the three-dimensional model comprises: selecting a support strategy from a plurality of pre-stored candidate support strategies according to the primary working path and the shape of the three-dimensional model; and generating the support path of the slave robot in accordance with the selected support strategy according to the primary working path and the shape of the three-dimensional model (see "the point generation module 2916 may designate the tool 104 as the supporting tool and the tool 108 as the forming tool […] The point generation module 2916 may designate the tool 104 as the forming tool and the tool 108 as the supporting tool […] The contact point locations, toolpaths, and/or designations of which tools are the forming versus supporting tools is communicated to a path writing module 2918 of the control unit 2900" in paragraphs [0141 - 0143]).
Regarding claim 6, Cao discloses, wherein the support path comprises: at least one of a local front support path, a local peripheral support path, a global support path and a following support path (see references in paragraphs [0141 - 0143] with respect to claim 5 above, in combination with "[…] a point generation module 2916 receives the order in which the curves of the model are to be processed and the groups of curves (e.g., with each group of curves representing the curves of the same feature). The point generation module 2916 generates helixes and toolpath points for the features. The helixes represent the curvature of the model (e.g., the model 3000) in the spaces between the curves in the neighboring planes throughout all or substantially all of the model […] the point generation module 2916 determines the helixes by obtaining pairs of curves from neighboring planes of the model” in paragraphs [0130, 0131] and figure 29).
Regarding claim 7, Cao discloses, wherein the step of processing and manufacturing the part to be formed by applying a double-point incremental forming method according to the primary working path and the support path comprises: controlling the forming tool head of the master robot to move according to the primary working path, while controlling a support tool head of the slave robot to move according to the support path, so as to finish the processing and manufacturing of the part to be formed (see "The control unit is configured to control movement of the first tool and the second tool by the one or more moving assemblies" in paragraph [0011] and also "control unit 2900 that may be used control the forming system 100 and/or 2300. The control unit 2900 may represent the control unit 116 of the system 100 shown in FIG. 1. The control unit 2900 receives an input signal 2902 that is generated by an input device 2904" in paragraph [0117] and figure 29).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao.
Regarding claim 3, Cao discloses substantially the claimed invention, but Cao does not expressly disclose wherein the preset thickness is determined by the size of a forming tool head and is within 0.5 to 2 mm.
However, Cao takes into account the diameter of the tool as an input information (see "The input signal 2902 can include […] the diameters (or other sizes) of the portions of the tools 104, 108, 2302, 2304 that engage the sheet” in paragraph [0117]). Therefore, it is prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cao to include the idea of determining the incremental depth between different levels depending on said information in order to guaranteed the smoothest possible profile of the final workpiece.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaime Figueroa whose telephone number is (571)270-7620. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Wade Miles can be reached on 571-270-7777. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAIME FIGUEROA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights