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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR
1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, in re claims 15-16, the “plate forming mold device”, the “upper mold”, the “lower mold”, and the “passage” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In re claim 2: “wherein” should be replaced by --further comprising--; and “a hat shape” should be --the hat shape--
In re claim 3: “a hat shape” should be --the hat shape--
In re claim 4: “the central portion” should be --a central portion--
In re claim 6: “the central portion” should be --a central portion--
In re claim 7: it appears “forming corner portions” in line 2 should be --forming the plate--
In re claim 8: it appears “a hat height (H3)” should be --the certain height (H3)-- to be consistent with the preamble of claim 1.
In re claim 9: the second instance of “a flat surface” should be --the flat surface--; and “a plate” should be --the plate--
In re claim 11: “the central portion” should be --a central portion--
In re claim 15: “the plate” in line 1 should be --a plate--; and “the center” should be --a center--
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 1-17 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. Any claims not directly addressed are only rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
In re claim 1: it is unclear what structure “a bottom surface” in line 2 is referring to; it is unclear if “the protrusion portion” is the same as or additional to the previously-recited “protrusion shape”; it is unclear if “a flat surface” in step b) is the same as or additional to that of line 2; it is unclear if “a flat surface” in step c) is the same as or additional to those previously-recited; and it is unclear if the “protruding portions” of step c) are the same as or additional to “the protrusion portion”.
In re claim 9: it is unclear what structure “a downwardly protruding area” is referring to.
In re claim 15: it is unclear what structure “an upper portion” is referring to; and the scope of “an upper mold and a lower mold on both sides of the plate” is unclear as the recitation can be interpreted multiple ways.
In re claim 17: it is unclear if “the protrusion portion” is the same as or additional to the previously-recited “protrusion shape”; it is unclear if “a flat surface” in step c) is the same as or additional to the “substantially flat surface”; and it is unclear if the “protruding portions” of step c) are the same as or additional to “the protrusion portion”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 9, 12-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by
Okudera et al. (hereinafter “Okudera”) (JP 2006120497 A).
In re claim 1, Okudera discloses: A multi-stage press forming method of a plate for forming the plate to have a hat shape that protrudes from a bottom surface to a certain height and has a flat surface on an upper portion, (figs. 1-10)[para. 0006] the method comprising:
a) (figs. 1-4)[para. 0017-0019] forming the plate (10)(fig. 1) to have a protrusion shape (11)(fig. 3) having a curved surface on an upper portion (11)(fig. 4) such that a thickness reduction rate of the plate is uniform; [para. 0004, lines 1-2](Since the mold surface 14 is a uniform repeating pattern, and a flat metal sheet is being used, the thickness reduction rate of the plate is uniform throughout the mold pattern as it undergoes the first plate forming step.)
PNG
media_image1.png
332
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
b) (figs. 5-7) forming corner portions (11a)(modified fig. 7 above) at both ends of the plate (modified fig. 7 above)(The corner portions are formed at both ends of the plate.) by moving the plate (figs. 5-7)(The plate is moved to form corner portions at both ends of the plate.) such that the protrusion portion has a flat surface; (11c)(The protrusion portion has a flat surface.)
PNG
media_image2.png
320
492
media_image2.png
Greyscale
c) (figs. 8-10) forming a flat surface (11c)(modified fig. 10 above) by correcting protruding portions (figs. 8-10)(The protruding portions are made flat by correcting protruding portions in the corner portions at both ends.) in the corner portions at both ends to make the protruding portions flat.
PNG
media_image3.png
416
405
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In re claim 9, Okudera discloses: The multi-stage press forming method of the plate of claim 1, wherein, in the step c) forming a flat surface, (figs. 8-10) a flat surface (F)(modified fig. 10 above) is formed on an upper surface of a plate by an upper mold, (28A)(modified fig. 10 above) (The flat surface is formed on an upper surface of a plate by an upper mold.) and a downwardly protruding area (26B)(modified fig. 10 above) is placed on a lower surface (L)(modified fig. 10 above) of the plate by a lower mold. (26A)(modified fig. 10 above)
In re claim 12, Okudera discloses: The multi-stage press forming method of the plate of claim 1, wherein, in the step c) forming a flat surface, pressure is applied to the plate [para. 0021] from a mold side (28)(figs. 8, 10) having a shape of a final component. (fig. 10)
In re claim 13, Okudera discloses: The multi-stage press forming method of the plate of claim 1, wherein a material of the plate includes metal. [para. 0017](The material of the plate includes stainless steel; a metal.)
PNG
media_image3.png
416
405
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In re claim 15, Okudera discloses: A plate forming mold device (12, 18, 24)(figs. 1-10)(The molds are all a part of a plate forming mold device.) that forms the plate to have a hat shape (11)(fig. 10)(The final plate (11) of fig. 10 has a hat shape.) that protrudes from a bottom surface (26)(fig. 10) to a certain height and has a flat surface (28)(fig. 10) on an upper portion, (The hat shape protrudes from a bottom surface to a certain height, and has a flat surface on an upper portion.) the plate forming mold device comprising:
an upper mold (28A)(modified fig. 10 above) and a lower mold (26A)(modified fig. 10 above) on both sides of the plate to be formed, (fig. 10)(An upper mold and a lower mold are on both sides of the plate to be formed.) wherein the upper mold has a flat portion shape in the center, (28B)(modified fig. 10 above)(The upper mold has a flat portion shape in the center.) and the lower mold provides a space in which at least one area corresponding to the flat portion protrudes downward to accommodate a surplus portion of the plate. (26B)(modified fig. 10 above)(The lower mold provides a space in which at least one area corresponding to the flat portion protrudes downward to accommodate a surplus portion of the plate.)
In re claim 16, Okudera discloses: The plate forming mold device of claim 15, wherein the upper mold and the lower mold are provided with at least one passage (P1, P2)(modified fig. 10 above) into which a pressure medium is insertable. [para. 0014]
In re claim 17, Okudera discloses: A forming method, (figs. 1-10) comprising:
a) (figs. 1-4)[para. 0017-0019] forming a plate (10)(fig. 1) to have a protrusion shape (11)(fig. 3) having a curved surface on an upper portion (11)(fig. 4) such that a thickness reduction rate of the plate is substantially uniform; [para. 0004, lines 1-2](Since the mold surface 14 is a uniform repeating pattern, and a flat metal sheet is being used, the thickness reduction rate of the plate is uniform throughout the mold pattern as it undergoes the first plate forming step.)
PNG
media_image1.png
332
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
b) (figs. 5-7) forming corner portions (11a)(modified fig. 7 above) at both ends of the plate (modified fig. 7 above)(The corner portions are formed at both ends of the plate.) by moving the plate (figs. 5-7)(The plate is moved to form corner portions at both ends of the plate.) such that the protrusion portion has a substantially flat surface; (11c)(The protrusion portion has a flat surface.)
PNG
media_image2.png
320
492
media_image2.png
Greyscale
c) (figs. 8-10) forming a flat surface (11c)(modified fig. 10 above) by correcting protruding portions (figs. 8-10)(The protruding portions are made flat by correcting protruding portions in the corner portions at both ends.) in the corner portions at both ends to make the protruding portions flat.
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.
Claims 4, 7-8, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okudera.
In re claims 4 and 10, Okudera discloses: The multi-stage press forming method of the plate of claim 1 and claim 9, (see claim 1 and claim 9 rejection above) wherein, in the step b) forming corner portions, the corner portions at both ends protrude upward compared to the central portion, (fig. 7 of Okudera)(The corner portions at both ends protrude upward compared to the central portion.)
However, Okudera does not explicitly disclose: a protrusion step difference (or a step difference of the protruding area) is 0.5 to 1% of a thickness of the plate.
However, the examiner notes that the claimed percentage range of a protrusion step difference being 0.5 to 1% of a thickness of a plate is a result-effective variable as one skilled in the art would want to change the range based on the application it is being used in. Further, the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art since the prior art teaches all of the structure of the claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the relative ranges of the method taught by Okudera to be within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, determining the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable requires only routine skill in the art (MPEP § 2144.05).
In re claim 7 and 8, Okudera discloses: The multi stage press forming method of the plate of claim 1, wherein a hat height difference occurs between formed steps a), b), and c).(figs. 1-10)
Okudera does not explicitly disclose: wherein, in the step b) forming corner portions, a hat height is formed to be greater than a hat height being formed in the step a) forming corner portions by 1 to 2%, [para. 0013] and in step c) forming a flat surface, a hat height is formed to be less than a hat height being formed in the step b) forming corner portions by 1 to 2%. [para. 0014]
However, the examiner notes that a hat height being greater by 1 to 2% in step b) compared to a hat height in step a) is a result-effective variable as one skilled in the art would want to change the range based on the application it is being used in. Further, the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art since the prior art teaches all of the structure of the claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the relative ranges of the method taught by Okudera to be within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, determining the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable requires only routine skill in the art (MPEP § 2144.05).
In re claim 14, Okudera discloses: The multi-stage press forming method of the plate of claim 1, wherein, in the step c) forming a flat surface, the flat surface is formed to have a length at a ratio of a gap of the hat shape. (figs. 8-10)(Since the length and gap are formed and are in a pattern arrangement, there is a length of the flat surface to the gap of the hat shape.)
Okudera does not explicitly disclose: the flat surface is formed to have a length of 25 to 30% of a gap of the hat shape.
However, the examiner notes that the flat surface having a length of 25 to 30% of a gap of the hat shape is a result-effective variable as one skilled in the art would want to change the range based on the application it is being used in. Further, the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art since the prior art teaches all of the structure of the claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the relative ranges of the method taught by Okudera to be within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, determining the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable requires only routine skill in the art (MPEP § 2144.05).
Claims 2, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okudera as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, in view of Yoshida et al. (hereinafter “Yoshida”) (KR 20170003668 A).
In re claim 2, Okudera discloses: The multi-stage press forming method of the plate of claim 1,
Okudera does not explicitly disclose: wherein a step of setting a gap of a hat shape that is uniformly formed is further performed before the step a) forming the plate.
Yoshida teaches: A similar multi-stage metal press forming method [para. 0024] wherein a step of setting a gap (P)(fig. 2) of a hat shape (fig. 2)(diagram (a) shows a hat shape that is uniformly formed.) that is uniformly formed is performed before the step a) forming the plate. [para. 0095]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the step of setting a gap of a hat shape before step a) as taught by Yoshida to the method of Okudera in order to pre-form a metal sheet so that its cross-section becomes a wave of a predetermined period. [para. 0091 of Yoshida]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose multi-stage metal press forming method. The combination of Okudera and Yoshida would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to pre-form a metal sheet so that its cross-section becomes a wave of a predetermined period.
In re claim 3, Okudera in view of Yoshida teaches: The multi-stage press forming method of the plate of claim 2, (see claim 2 rejection above) wherein, in the step a) forming the plate, a hat height of a protrusion portion protruding from a plate bottom surface is a portion of a gap of a hat shape. (figs. 3-4 of Okudera)(A hat height of a protrusion portion protruding from a plate bottom surface is a ratio of a gap of a hat shape since both have a tangible length.)
However, Okudera in view of Yoshida does not explicitly teach: wherein, in the step a) forming the plate, a hat height of a protrusion portion protruding from a plate bottom surface is 60 to 70% of a gap of a hat shape.
However, the examiner notes that a hat height of a protrusion portion protruding from a plate bottom surface being 60 to 70% of a gap of a hat shape in step a) is a result-effective variable as one skilled in the art would want to change the range based on the application it is being used in. Further, the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art since the prior art teaches all of the structure of the claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the relative ranges of the method taught by Okudera to be within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, determining the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable requires only routine skill in the art (MPEP § 2144.05).
Further, the examiner notes that Yoshida teaches a hat height of a protrusion portion to be 0.6mm and a gap of a hat shape to be 1.5mm (fig. 3 of Yoshida) which would give a ratio of 40%, and the applicant has claimed criticality on ratios above 70%, [specification, para. 0035] therefore the device would function appropriately having the claimed ratio.
In re claim 5, Modified Okudera teaches: The multi-stage press forming method of the plate of claim 4, (see claim 4 rejection above) wherein the protrusion step difference is formed on both sides of the plate by an upper mold and a lower mold. (figs. 6-8)
Modified Okudera does not explicitly teach: wherein the protrusion step difference is formed equally on both sides of the plate by an upper mold and a lower mold.
Yoshida teaches: wherein the protrusion step difference (irregularities)[para. 0045] is formed equally on both sides of the plate by an upper mold and a lower mold. [para. 0045](Since the protrusion step difference occurs in repeating periods, the protrusion step difference is formed equally on both sides of the plate by an upper mold and a lower mold.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the protrusion step difference equally formed on both sides of the plate by an upper mold and a lower mold as taught by Yoshida to the method including an upper mold and a lower mold of Okudera in order to reduce cracking by using a uniform protrusion step difference that reduces cracking. [para. 0024]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose multi-stage metal press forming method. The combination of Okudera and Yoshida would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce cracking.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okudera as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yoshitome et al. (hereinafter “Yoshitome”) (US 20070125149 A1).
In re claims 6 and 11, Okudera discloses: The multi-stage press forming method of the plate of claim 1, wherein, in the step b) forming corner portions, and in the step c) forming a flat surface, the plate located at the corner portions at both ends has a thickness, and the central portion of the plate has a thickness. (figs. 5-7 of Okudera)(The plate located at the corner portions at both ends has a thickness and the central portion of the plate has a thickness in steps b) and c).) In step c) forming a flat surface, the corner portions at both ends have the same height as the central portion. (fig. 10 of Okudera)(The corner portions at both ends have the same height as the central portion.)
Okudera does not explicitly disclose: in the step b) forming corner portions, and in the step c) forming a flat surface, a thickness of the plate located at the corner portions at both ends is greater than a thickness of the plate in the central portion by 10 to 20%.
Yoshitome teaches: A similar metal press forming method [Abstract] wherein in a step of forming corner portions, (fig. 5) a thickness of the plate (20)(fig. 5) located at the corner portions (22)[para. 0045] at both ends is greater than a thickness of the plate in the central portion. [para. 0045](Since the thickness increasing device increases the thickness of the corner portions (22), the corner portions have an increased thickness relative to the central portion of the plate.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the step of setting a thickness of the plate located at the corner portions at both ends to be greater than a thickness of the plate in the central portion as taught by Yoshitome to the method of Okudera in order to reduce manufacturing costs and the weight of the press-formed member. [para. 0010 of Yoshitome]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a metal press forming method. The combination of Okudera and Yoshitome would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce manufacturing costs and the weight of the press-formed member.
However, Okudera in view of Yoshitome does not explicitly teach: in the step b) forming corner portions, and in the step c) forming a flat surface, a thickness of the plate located at the corner portions at both ends is greater than a thickness of the plate in the central portion by 10 to 20%.
However, the examiner notes that having a thickness of the plate located at the corner portions at both ends to be greater than a thickness of the plate in the central portion by 10 to 20% in steps b) and c) are result-effective variables as one skilled in the art would want to change the range based on the application it is being used in. Further, the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art since the prior art teaches all of the structure of the claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the relative ranges of the method taught by Okudera to be within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, determining the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable requires only routine skill in the art (MPEP § 2144.05). Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the ratio “may” be within the claimed ranges. [spec, para. 0040].
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
JP 2001087820 A teaches a plate forming method.
US 20180154416 A1 teaches a multi-stage plate forming method and device with irregularities, ridges, and protrusions.
US 20120055223 A1 teaches a press forming method for a plate with varying thicknesses at corner and flat portions, describing the length of the flat portion and periods that the shape repeats.
JP 2019005803 A teaches a molded article with multiple stages of forming.
JP 2019114515 A teaches a multi-stage plate forming method and device with irregularities, ridges, and protrusions.
JP 2019139966 A teaches a multi-stage plate forming method with protrusions.
WO 2014175389 A1 teaches a multi-stage plate forming method and device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUEVARA SAOOD ISSA whose telephone number is (571)482-9980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-5pm and every other Friday 9:00am-5pm.
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.
/J.S.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights