DETAILED ACTION
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 1-5 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 1 recites “wherein, in a case where the table output is corrected”, it is not clear that this recitation is part of the invention and that it is necessary to occur. Claim 5 includes two cases and it is not clear if either or both are necessary method steps.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (12,226,816) in view of Shibata (2009/02935760). Huang discloses a method of repeating bending of a workpiece (sheet material, 120) with a press brake (102; Fig. 1) to target bend parameters (col. 5, lines 52-55) by applying pressure to the workpiece (col. 5, lines 58-65) with an upper tool (116) and a lower tool (118) by making a series of bends (1st to N-th process; col. 7, lines 60-65) comprising 8 data point bends between 30-150° while supporting the workpiece with a back gauge for feeding the workpiece at a predetermined pitch (angle even distributed between 30-150; col. 7, lines 62-63) wherein the back gauge is programmed to move between bends (col. 6, lines 2-4). Huang discloses a measuring process of measuring a bending angle of the workpiece with a bending angle sensor comprising optical sensing (112; col. 6, lines 5-10) or a manual protractor (col. 6, lines 15-18) at a completion of any of the series of bends between bending steps 1 and N. At an intermediate bending step after an Mth bending process (col. 9, lines 36-38) a bending angle (609) is measured (col. 10, lines 19-27) and a calculation process (col. 10, lines 28-30) determines a difference between the measured bending angle (609) of the bending angle and a target bending angle (606) according to a table output comprising a calculated table value (602) selected from a table database of values (106 col. 9, lines 50-55) and a corrected table value (604; col. 10, lines 40-42) is used for the next bending process and the upper tool (116) applies pressure to bend the workpiece to the target bending angle. Regarding the last paragraph of claim 1 the language “wherein, in a case…” it is not clear that this step is a necessary process step that must occur, but Huang discloses that a workpiece is discarded when a workpiece is not correctly bent (col. 13, lines 37-41) by measurement of a bending angle (408) which is not within an allowable angle range of a target angle (406) during a first bending process, the process returns to an earlier than Mth process (process step 1) with the workpiece being scrapped and replaced (col. 13, lines 39-45) with corrected table output (compensated input angle 614) being used.
Huang does not disclose that the press brake includes an upper table and a lower table. Shibata teaches a press brake (1) comprising an upper table (5) carrying an upper punch (11), a lower table (7) supporting a lower die (9) and ram driving means (13) installed on right and left sides the table (Fig. 1A) to drive the upper table and Shibata teaches a table output (Fig. 13) comprising pressure vs. bending angle. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to bend the workpiece of Huang with ram driving means as taught by Shibata in order to configure right and left side pressure cylinders to apply the pressure to the upper punch tool of Huang to bend the workpiece to the target bending value.
Regarding claim 2, Huang discloses that at an intermediate bending process step (Mth process) the bending angle of the workpiece is within a predetermined range (tolerance, 404) so that subsequent bending continues.
Regarding claim 4, Huang disclose calculating an accumulated bending angle error for the bending between an expected target angle (606) which is 85.4° and a measured value (609) of 87° and correcting the table output (604) so as to cancel the accumulated bending error (col. 10, lines 30-39) and the next bending process proceeds (col. 10, lines 41-42).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (12,226,816) in view of Shibata (2009/02935760) and further in view of Gesuita (9,778,013). Regarding claim 3, Huang discloses an angle range from 30-150° but suggests other ranges (col. 7, lines 62-64). Gesuita teaches (col. 16, lines 63-67) that an angle (α) is calculated as 180° with an initial βo=0 and that a feeding device (11, Fig. 8) is configured to support a workpiece (50) at angles (180° –(β1+β2)) as shown in Fig. 7 and that angle measurements are takes with an angle measurement device (2). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to measure the bend angle of the workpiece of Huang at bending angles up to 180° as taught by Gesuita so as to take a bend measurement at between 165°-175°.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (12,226,816) in view of Shibata (2009/02935760) and further in view of Gesuita (9,778,013). Regarding claim 5, the language “in a case where the bending angle…” it is not clear that this step is a necessary process step limitation that must occur for either of the two cases claimed. Huang does not specifically recite the case that the bend angle is measured at a single point between left and right ends of the workpiece. Gesuita teaches (Fig. 6) that a bend angle measurement device (2) is configured to take a bend angle measurement between the left and right sides of a workpiece (51) along axis (Y; Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to measure the bend angle of the workpiece of Huang at a single point as taught by Gesuita and correct the output table according to this value.
Huang does not specifically recite the case that the bend angle is measured at more than one point between left and right ends of the workpiece. Gesuita teaches (Fig. 7) that a bend angle measurement device (2) is configured to take a bend angle measurement between the left and right sides of a workpiece (51) at more than one location between the left and right sides of the workpiece. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to measure the bend angle of the workpiece of Huang at more than one point as taught by Gesuita and correct the output table according to multiple values.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD THOMAS TOLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Chris 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.
/EDWARD T TOLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights