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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paterson (U.S. Patent No. 5,947,885) in view of Gewiss (U.S. Patent No. 4,012,932).
Regarding claim 1: Paterson discloses a method of folding a tessellation with an articulating die, comprising:
articulating die substantially similar to the crease lines in a folded tessellation, see for example (Figs. 26, 30-34, & 48-49; via upper and lower applied forces);
providing sheet material in proximity to the contact side of the die (Figs. 26, 30-34, & 48-49; via the shown sheet material positioned between upper and lower pressing means); and
applying force to one or more articulating mechanisms on the die, which relay applied force to the folding action of the die, thereby applying corresponding folding action to the sheet material, see for example (Figs. 26, 30-34, & 48-49; via the shown applied upper/lower forces 38/38c).
Paterson may not show a hinging die with plurality of hinge axes. However, Gewiss, discloses similar method with the use of hinging die with plurality of hinge axes, see for example (Fig. 2; via the shown plurality of hinging and rotating points of upper/lower applied forces elements positioned on conveyors 18/19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Paterson’s dies, by another movable and hinging once, as suggested by Gewiss, in order to positively and effectively drive and position the pressing force over the web or sheets (column 1, lines 35-40).
Regarding the latest filed amendments filed on 08/19/2026 referring to more detailed structural limitations of the actual die, are not given much patentable weight in the method claims. It is noted that the filed amendment is not referring to any positive step to the claimed folding process, therefore, not given much patentable weight.
Regarding claim 2: two articulating dies are applied,
with said sheet material held between the contact faces of the two dies, see for example (Figs. 26 & 48; via the shown upper and lower applied force mechanisms); and
the dies and material actuated to fold in a press (via the shown folded materials 23/24).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As noted above it is believed that the latest filed amendment referring to more detailed structural limitations of the actual folding die in a method claim, which are not given much patentable weight as there is no positive step claimed or added to the claimed folding process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, the cited new arts of the PTO-892 suggest a use of similar folding dies with hinge points.
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 SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights