DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuhan (CN 113042618 A).
With regards to claim 1, Wuhan discloses a sequential shaping method for shaping a metal sheet into a three-dimensional form by pressing and moving a distal end of a rod- form tool (1) against the metal sheet, the sequential shaping method comprising:
using the rod-form tool disposed on one main-surface side of the metal sheet, and a heating device (4, 6, 7) disposed on another main-surface side of the metal sheet to heat the metal sheet, as seen in Figure 1-5;
dividing a path along which the rod-form tool moves on the metal sheet into a plurality of local movement regions based on a preset movement path of the rod-form tool (“preset track,” page 2, last paragraph);
heating an entirety of each of the local movement regions from a reverse side, and then shaping the metal sheet using the rod-form tool [at least page 2, last paragraph and claims 7-8].
Wuhan also discloses heating during forming, as described in at least claim 2-5. Wuhan further discloses that the heating is completed at a specified temperature [at least page 2, last paragraph] and one of ordinary skill would consider it to be inherent that the heating would be completed at a fixed time.
Wuhan discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for repeating heating and shaping steps as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a multiple heating and forming steps, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working steps involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
With regards to claim 2, Wuhan discloses wherein when heating the entirety of the local movement regions for the fixed time from the reverse side, the heating is started from a region over which the rod-form tool projects in an axial direction, as seen in at least Figures 1-3. It is noted that the “term “when” is considered to make this limitation conditional i.e. the claim is not positively reciting this limitation.
With regards to claim 3, Wuhan discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the metal sheet is heated for a time of 2.4 x t or greater, where t is a sheet thickness of the metal sheet. It is noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would know that it takes longer to heat a metal plate the thicker it is. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed heating time, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a results effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regards to claim 4, Wuhan discloses wherein the metal sheet is shaped while being held along a periphery thereof [held via clamp 3, as seen in Figure 1-3].
With regards to claims 5 and 6, Wuhan discloses wherein the heating device irradiates the metal sheet with laser light/contactless manner to heat the metal sheet (via laser generator 7).
With regards to claim 7, Wuhan discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the heating device blows hot air onto the metal sheet to heat the metal sheet. It is considered to be well-known that there are different types of heating device including a laser, an inductor, one that blow hot air and flame heaters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hot air heating device since it would have been obvious to try this technique when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for heating, with a reasonable expectation of success. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
With regards to claim 8, Wuhan discloses a sequential shaping apparatus used in the sequential shaping method according to claim l, the sequential shaping apparatus comprising:
the rod-form tool (forming tool 1) disposed on the one main-surface side of the metal sheet,
the heating device (4, 6, 7) disposed on another main-surface side of the metal sheet,
a tool-driving device (forming tool head) that drives the rod-form tool in at least three orthogonal axial directions, and a main control device (not explicitly stated, but considered to be inherent as there is reference to a preset track for movement of the forming tool) configured to control the tool-driving device.
Wuhan discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the heating device being configured to individually heat the local movement regions from reverse sides thereof, and the main control device being configured to control the heating device based on data pertaining to driving the rod-form tool. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Wuhan’s with heating and control device configured as claimed because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 Sc.D. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and further show the state of the art: US Patent 8,322,176.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M EKIERT whose telephone number is (571)272-1901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM EST.
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.
/TERESA M EKIERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights