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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/29/2026 with respect the prior art Hershberger (US20200122211A1) and Evobend (DE202020002598U1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect the prior art Hershberger (US20200122211A1), The Applicant argued that “the pre-fold is not closed during extension of the upper bending tool 224 as required by amended Claim 1, but rather during retraction of the upper bending tool 224. As such, Hershberger cannot anticipate amended Independent Claim 1, or Claims 10-12, depending therefrom. The above-provided discussion applies with the same or similar force to Independent Claim 13 and Claims 14-18 depending therefrom”.
In response to this argument; for a bending machine of claim 13, (fig.5 and paragraph 0040: the bending tool (223) and (224)) is capable to be extended and retracted to change the angle to form the fold).
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
In response to this argument, for the method of claim 1, Hershberger does not disclose “the step of changing the angle is performed by extending the bending tool relative to the associated clamping jaw”;
However, Hershberger clearly discloses figs.6A-6E is just an example type of operation (paragraph 0041); and
Hershberger discloses the bending tool (223) and (224)) is capable to be extended and retracted to change the angle to form the fold (fig.5 and paragraph 0040);
Further, Hershberger discloses the position of the bending tool relative to the clamping element may be achieved through different arrangements (paragraph 0044); and the bending machine is not limited to the specific embodiments described (paragraph 0045)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Hershberger to try wherein the step of changing the angle is performed by extending the bending tool relative to the associated clamping jaw, since it has held that "obvious to try a finite number of solutions " was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Or, under another interpretation:
Hershberger does not disclose “the step of changing the angle is performed by extending the bending tool relative to the associated clamping jaw”;
However, the Applicant specification paragraph 0059 discloses: in “Pressing may be performed by extending and/or retracting the bending tool relative to the associated clamping jaw. The retraction and extension may be achieved with linear displacement of the bending tool relative to the associated base member and/or with linear displacement of the associated base member together with the bending tool relative to the associated clamping jaw. The retraction and extension may be achieved by swiveling the bending tool relative to the associated clamping jaw. Depending on the shape of the hook-shaped bending portion and/or the shape of the base member, it is advantageous to produce the pre-seam on the workpiece by retracting or extending the bending tool and simultaneously pressing with a specific portion or a specific flat surface of the hook-shaped bending portion. The pre-seam produced may be a profile leg”; and
Canceled claim 4 previously recited “wherein the step of changing the angle is performed by retracting the bending tool relative to the associated clamping jaw”;
So, it appears that “the step of changing the angle is performed by extending the bending tool relative to the associated clamping jaw” is a design option and is not critical;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the desired movement of the bending tool as desired, including the step of changing the angle is performed by extending the bending tool relative to the associated clamping jaw, as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
With respect the prior art Evobend (DE202020002598U1, The Applicant argued that “Evobend discloses a bending machine that operates in a pre-bending operating mode and a setting operating mode. In the pre-bending operating mode, referring to FIG. 10 thereof, reproduced below, a pre-bend location 208 is produced. See also Evobend, Para. [0098]. Subsequently, in the setting operating mode, referring to FIG. 11 thereof, also reproduced below, a setting bend location 210 having an angle of 90° is produced. See also Evobend, Para. [0099]. FIG. 11 clearly illustrates that the pre-bend location 208 and the setting bend location 210 are different and spatially separate bending locations. Accordingly, in the setting operating mode, the angle of the pre-bend location 208 is not changed; rather, an additional bend is formed. As such, Evobend cannot anticipate Independent Claim 1”.
In response to this argument, Evobend clearly disclose that the bending tool (30) is advanced beyond the first jaw (22) “corresponding to extending” to press (208) to form bending point (212) (figs.15-17; and paragraphs 0110-0112).
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
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 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hershberger (US20200122211A1).
Regarding claim 13, Hershberger discloses a bending machine for producing a seam on a workpiece made of flat material (abstract, paragraphs 0029-0040; figs.1-2: (100)), comprising:
a first clamping jaw (fig.3: (211));
a second clamping jaw (fig.3: (212) that is mounted movably relative to the first clamping jaw and configured to clamp, together with the first clamping jaw, the workpiece in a clamping plane (fig.3);
a bending unit (fig.3: (221) and (222)) that is arranged on the associated clamping jaw and has a bending tool (fig.3: (223) and (224)), the bending unit being configured to bend a portion of the workpiece by moving the bending tool relative to the associated clamping jaw to form a fold in the workpiece (figs.3 and 6A-6E and paragraphs 0041-0044); and
a control unit (fig.2: (130)) configured to:
produce a pre-seam on the workpiece such that the workpiece is located in an area in front of the clamping jaws, comprising forming the fold (fig.3), wherein the pre-seam extends at an angle relative to the clamping plane; and change the angle by extending the bending tool elative to the associated clamping jaw (figs.6A-6E) (fig.5 and paragraph 0040: the bending tool (223) and (224)) is capable to be extended and retracted to change the angle to form the fold).
Regarding claim 14, Hershberger discloses wherein the bending tool of the bending unit comprises a hook-shaped bending portion having an inner surface and an outer surface (fig.3).
Regarding claim 15, Hershberger discloses further comprising a further bending unit (fig.3: (221) and (222)) that is arranged on the other clamping jaw and has a further bending tool, and wherein the further bending unit is configured to bend a portion of the workpiece by moving the further bending tool to form a fold.
Regarding claim 16, Hershberger discloses wherein the bending machine comprises a long folding machine (relative term, the bending machine (100) is a long machine).
Regarding claim 17, Hershberger discloses wherein the seam comprises an inclined seam (fig.3).
Regarding claim 18, Hershberger discloses wherein the flat material comprises sheet metal (abstract).
Claims 1, 3, 6-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Evobend (DE202020002598U1 attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Evobend discloses a method for producing a seam on a workpiece made of flat material using a bending machine (abstract, paragraphs 0095-00105; figs.1 and 15-17: (10)), the bending machine comprising:
a first clamping jaw (fig.15: (22));
a second clamping jaw (fig.104: (24)) that is mounted movably relative to the first clamping jaw and configured to clamp, together with the first clamping jaw, the workpiece (fig.15: (12)) in a clamping plane (fig.15: (32)); and
a bending unit (fig.15: (26) and (28)) that is arranged on one of the clamping jaws and has a bending tool (fig.3: (30) and (31)), the bending unit being configured to bend a portion of the workpiece by moving the bending tool relative to the associated clamping jaw to form a fold in the workpiece; the method comprising: producing a pre-seam on the workpiece such that the workpiece is located in an area in front of the clamping jaws, comprising forming the fold (fig.3), wherein the pre-seam extends at an angle relative to the clamping plane; and changing the angle by moving the bending tool (figs.15-17 and paragraphs 0110-0112).
wherein the step of changing the angle is performed by extending the bending tool relative to the associated clamping jaw (figs.15-17; and paragraphs 0110-0112: the bending tool (30) is advanced beyond the first jaw (22) “corresponding to extending” to press (208) to form bending point (212)).
Regarding claim 3, Evobend discloses wherein the bending tool of the bending unit comprises a hook-shaped bending portion having an inner surface and an outer surface, and wherein the step of changing the angle is performed by pressing with the outer surface as the bending tool extends relative to the associated clamping jaw (figs.15-17).
Regarding claim 6, Evobend discloses wherein producing a pre-seam on the workpiece comprises forming he fold and at least one other fold (figs.15-17).
Regarding claim 7, Evobend discloses wherein the bending machine further comprises a further bending unit (fig.10: (26) and (28)) that is arranged on the other clamping jaw and has a further bending tool, and wherein the further bending unit is configured to bend a portion of the workpiece by moving the further bending tool to form a fold, and wherein the step of changing the angle is performed by moving the further bending tool (figs.15-17 and paragraphs 0110-0112).
Regarding claim 8, Evobend discloses wherein, in the step of producing the pre-seam, the fold is formed by bending with the further bending tool ((figs.15-17 and paragraphs 0110-0112).
Regarding claim 9, Evobend discloses wherein more than one fold is formed by bending with the further bending tool in the step of producing the pre-seam ((figs.15-17 and paragraphs 0110-0112).
Regarding claim 13, Evobend discloses a bending machine for producing a seam on a workpiece made of flat material (abstract, paragraphs 0095-00105; figs.1 and 15-17: (10)), comprising:
a first clamping jaw (fig.15: (22));
a second clamping jaw (fig.104: (24)) that is mounted movably relative to the first clamping jaw and configured to clamp, together with the first clamping jaw, the workpiece (fig.15: (12)) in a clamping plane (fig.15: (32));
a bending unit (fig.15: (26) and (28)) that is arranged on the associated clamping jaw and has a bending tool (fig.3: (30) and (31)), the bending unit being configured to bend a portion of the workpiece by moving the bending tool relative to the associated clamping jaw to form a fold in the workpiece; and a control unit (fig.1: (82)) configured to: produce a pre-seam on the workpiece such that the workpiece is located in an area in front of the clamping jaws, comprising forming the fold (fig.3), wherein the pre-seam extends at an angle relative to the clamping plane; and change the angle by extending the bending tool relative to the associated clamping jaw (figs.15-17; and paragraphs 0110-0112: the bending tool (30) is advanced beyond the first jaw (22) “corresponding to extending” to press (208) to form bending point (212)).
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.
claims 1 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hershberger (US20200122211A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hershberger discloses a method for producing a seam on a workpiece made of flat material using a bending machine (abstract, paragraphs 0029-0040; figs.1-2: (100)), the bending machine comprising:
a first clamping jaw (fig.3: (211));
a second clamping jaw (fig.3: (212)) that is mounted movably relative to the first clamping jaw and configured to clamp, together with the first clamping jaw, the workpiece (fig.3: (108)) in a clamping plane (fig.3); and
a bending unit (fig.3: (221) and (222)) that is arranged on one of the clamping jaws and has a bending tool (fig.3: (223) and (224)), the bending unit being configured to bend a portion of the workpiece by moving the bending tool relative to the associated clamping jaw to form a fold in the workpiece (figs.3 and 6A-6E and paragraphs 0041-0044); the method comprising:
producing a pre-seam on the workpiece such that the workpiece is located in an area in front of the clamping jaws, comprising forming the fold (fig.3), wherein the pre-seam extends at an angle relative to the clamping plane; and changing the angle by moving the bending tool (figs.6A-6E).
Hershberger does not disclose “the step of changing the angle is performed by extending the bending tool relative to the associated clamping jaw”;
However, Hershberger clearly discloses figs.6A-6E is just an example type of operation (paragraph 0041); and
Hershberger discloses the bending tool (223) and (224)) is capable to be extended and retracted to change the angle to form the fold (fig.5 and paragraph 0040);
Further, Hershberger discloses the position of the bending tool relative to the clamping element may be achieved through different arrangements (paragraph 0044); and the bending machine is not limited to the specific embodiments described (paragraph 0045)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Hershberger to try wherein the step of changing the angle is performed by extending the bending tool relative to the associated clamping jaw, since it has held that "obvious to try a finite number of solutions " was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Or, under another interpretation:
Hershberger does not disclose “the step of changing the angle is performed by extending the bending tool relative to the associated clamping jaw”;
However, the Applicant specification paragraph 0059 discloses: in “Pressing may be performed by extending and/or retracting the bending tool relative to the associated clamping jaw. The retraction and extension may be achieved with linear displacement of the bending tool relative to the associated base member and/or with linear displacement of the associated base member together with the bending tool relative to the associated clamping jaw. The retraction and extension may be achieved by swiveling the bending tool relative to the associated clamping jaw. Depending on the shape of the hook-shaped bending portion and/or the shape of the base member, it is advantageous to produce the pre-seam on the workpiece by retracting or extending the bending tool and simultaneously pressing with a specific portion or a specific flat surface of the hook-shaped bending portion. The pre-seam produced may be a profile leg”; and
So, it appears that “the step of changing the angle is performed by extending the bending tool relative to the associated clamping jaw” is a design option and is not critical;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the desired movement of the bending tool as desired, including the step of changing the angle is performed by extending the bending tool relative to the associated clamping jaw, as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 10, Hershberger discloses wherein the seam comprises an inclined seam (fig.3).
Regarding claim 11, Hershberger discloses wherein the flat material comprises sheet metal (abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Hershberger discloses wherein the bending machine comprises a long folding machine (relative term, the bending machine (100) is a long machine).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights