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 § 102
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 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korean Patent Document No. KR 10-2019-0036952 A by Jeong et al., hereinafter “Jeong”.
Regarding claim 13, Jeong discloses a method for metal forming (the method employed by the system shown in Fig. 2; ¶[0021]), the method comprising:
positioning a metal part (metal part 1 in Figs. 2-4; ¶[0024]-[0026]) in an induction coil (induction work coil 32 in Fig. 4) using a slidable plate (slidable inlet support plate 21 in Fig. 5; ¶[0053] and [0054]) wherein the induction coil and slidable plate are each communicatively and operatively connected to a controller (induction coil 32 is operatively connected to controller 50 in Fig. 10 and slidable inlet support plate 21 is operatively connected to controller 50 in that support plate 21 delivers material plate 1 into heating device 30 so that temperature sensor 40 may measure the temperature of the material plate);
heating the metal part using the induction coil (induction work coil 32 is used to heat material part 1 in Fig. 4);
detecting a temperature of the metal part within the induction coil using a temperature sensing device communicatively connected to the controller (Fig. 10 shows temperature sensor 40 detects temperature of part 1 within coil 32 and communicates the temperature to controller 50); and
shaping the metal part using a die to form a shaped metal part (Fig. 2 shows metal part 1 is removed from coil 32 in heater H and then shaped in a die of stamping unit 14).
Regarding claim 14, Jeong anticipates the method of claim 13 as explained above. Jeong further discloses controlling the temperature of the metal part (1 in Fig. 4) using the controller (50 in Fig. 10) communicatively connected to the temperature sensing device (40 in Fig. 10) and operatively connected to the induction coil (32 in Fig. 4). Fig. 10 shows temperature sensor 40 is used to control the temperature within heating device 30 by communicating with controller 50.
Regarding claim 15, Jeong anticipates the method of claim 13 as explained above. Jeong further discloses aligning the metal part using a funnel prior to the step of shaping the metal part. Push member 25 acts as a funnel to align metal part 1 in heater 30 in Fig. 5 prior to being shaped in stamping unit 14 in Fig. 2.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean Patent Document No. KR 10-2019-0036952 A by Jeong et al., hereinafter “Jeong”, in view of Belgian Patent Document No. BE 897803 A by Kraftwerk Union AG, hereinafter “Kraftwerk”.
Regarding claim 1, Jeong discloses a metal forming system (system shown in Fig. 2; ¶[0021]), comprising:
an induction coil configured for heating a metal part positioned within the induction coil (induction work coil 32 in Fig. 4 is configured for heating metal part 1 positioned within it; ¶[0034]);
a slidable plate configured for moving the metal part into the induction coil (slidable inlet support plate 21 in Fig. 5; ¶[0053] and [0054]);
a temperature sensor configured for measuring a temperature of the metal part within the induction coil (temperature sensor 40 in Fig. 10; ¶[0061]-[0062]); and
a die operatively coupled with cylinders configured to press the metal part into the die to shape the metal part when the slidable plate moves the metal part out of the induction coil (stamping unit 14 in Fig. 2 is shown with a die operatively coupled with cylinders configured to press metal part 1 into the die to shape it when support plate 21 moves it out of induction coil 32 onto outlet support 23 as shown in Fig. 9; ¶[0024]).
Jeong is silent regarding the type of cylinders stamping unit 14 in Fig. 2 uses to press metal part 1. Thus, Jeong does not disclose the cylinders are specifically pneumatic cylinders.
In the same field of metal fabrication using induction heating, Kraftwerk teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically use pneumatic cylinders in forming inductively heated metal parts. See Fig. 1 and its written description at the bottom of page 3 and top of page 4 concerning forming punches 5 and 7.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use pneumatically actuated cylinders as the particular type of cylinders used in Jeong’s stamping unit 14 in the same way Kraftwerk teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Kraftwerk to Jeong’s metal forming system would yield the predictable result of pneumatically actuating Jeong’s disclosed stamping unit.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art reference combination of Jeong in view of Kraftwerk renders the system of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Jeong further discloses the slidable plate (inlet support plate 21 in Figs. 5-7) is configured to be driven along rods directionally aligned with the induction coil (Figs. 5-7 show inlet support plate 21 being driven by screw drive shaft 22 along rods directionally aligned with induction work coil 32 in heating unit 30; ¶[0054]).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art reference combination of Jeong in view of Kraftwerk renders the system of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Jeong further discloses the slidable plate (inlet support plate 21 in Figs. 5-7) includes grippers configured to secure the metal part to the slidable plate (Fig. 5 shows gripper push members 25 secure metal part 1 to plate support 21; ¶[0056]).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art reference combination of Jeong in view of Kraftwerk renders the system of claim 6 unpatentable as explained above. Jeong further discloses the grippers (25 in Fig. 5) include a front gripper (25c in Fig. 5) and a back gripper (25b in Fig. 5) configured to receive and secure the metal part to the slidable plate (25b and 25c secure part 1 on plate support 21 in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art reference combination of Jeong in view of Kraftwerk renders the system of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Jeong further discloses a funnel configured to align the metal part in the die and coil. Push member 25 in Fig. 5 acts as a funnel which aligns metal part 1 in coil 32 in heater H and the die in stamping unit 14 in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 17, Jeong anticipates the method of claim 13 as explained above. However, Jeong is silent regarding how part 1 in Figs. 2 and 4 is shaped stamping unit 14.
In the same field of metal fabrication using induction heating, Kraftwerk teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a joggle within the metal part. See Fig. 2.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Jeong’s stamping unit 14 to form a joggle in part 1 in the same way Kraftwerk teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Kraftwerk to Jeong’s method would yield the predictable result of forming a joggle in Jeong’s part 1 during Jeong’s disclosed shaping step.
Regarding claim 18, Jeong anticipates the method of claim 13 as explained above. However, Jeong is silent regarding the intended use of part 1 in Figs. 2 and 4 after it is shaped in the die of stamping unit 14.
In the same field of metal fabrication using induction heating, Kraftwerk teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a joggle within the metal part where the metal part is used as a stringer to string fuel rods together at a spaced distance. See Fig. 2 and the written description at the bottom of page 5 and top of page 6.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Jeong’s stamping unit 14 to form a joggle in part 1 to shape a stringer in the same way Kraftwerk teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Kraftwerk to Jeong’s method would yield the predictable result of forming a joggle in Jeong’s part 1 during Jeong’s disclosed shaping step.
Claims 2-3, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Kraftwerk and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0394247 A1 by Schultz et al., hereinafter “Schultz”.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art reference combination of Jeong in view of Kraftwerk renders the system of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. However, Jeong is silent regarding whether controller 50 shown in Figs. 3 and 10 also determines a part type and a corresponding die, at least based on a part number.
In the same field of metal forming systems, Schultz teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a controller in a metal forming system to determine a part type and corresponding die based upon a part number. See paragraph [0041].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a controller in conjunction with Jeong’s metal forming system to determine a part type and corresponding die based upon a part number in the same way Schultz teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Schultz to Jeong’s metal forming system would result in using a controller as Schultz teaches.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art reference combination of Jeong in view of Kraftwerk and further in view of Schultz renders the system of claim 2 unpatentable as explained above. Jeong further discloses the controller (50 in Figs. 3 and 10) communicatively connects to the temperature sensor (40 in Fig. 10) and controls the temperature of the induction coil (32 in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art reference combination of Jeong in view of Kraftwerk renders the system of claim 8 unpatentable as explained above. However, Jeong does not disclose a part sensor directed towards the funnel (funnel pusher 25 in Fig. 5) to detect the position of the metal part (1 in Fig. 4) relative to the induction coil (32 in Fig. 4) and the die (die in stamping unit 14 in Fig. 2).
In the same field of metal forming systems, Schultz teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use part sensors to detect the position of a part being formed in a metal forming system. See at least paragraphs [0015], [0020] and [0037].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a part sensor on Jeong’s support plate 21 at pusher 25 to sense the position of metal part 1 relative to induction work coil 32 and the die in stamping unit 14. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Schultz to Jeon’s system would yield the predictable result of adding a sensor to Jeong’s pusher 25 to determine the position of part 1.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art reference combination of Jeong in view of Kraftwerk renders the system of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. However, Jeong does not disclose a locating camera configured to collect an image showing a position of the metal part in the induction coil and die.
In the same field of metal forming systems, Schultz teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a locating camera configured to collect an image showing a position of the metal part in the induction coil and die. See at least paragraph [0037].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a locating camera in Jeong’s system configured to collect an image showing a position of metal part 1 in induction coil 32 and the die of stamping unit 14 in the same way Schultz teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Schultz to Jeong’s system would yield the predictable result of adding a locating camera to Jeong’s system as Schultz teaches.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Kraftwerk and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,359,210 to Peterson, hereinafter “Peterson”.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art reference combination of Jeong in view of Kraftwerk renders the system of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. However, Jeong is silent regarding the type of temperature sensor used.
In the same field of induction coil heating of metal, Peterson teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pyrometer type temperature sensor to measure temperature of induction-coil-heated workpieces. See the abstract.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pyrometer type temperature sensor as Jeong’s disclosed temperature sensor in the same way Peterson teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Peterson to Jeong’s metal forming system would yield the predictable result of using a pyrometer-type temperature sensor in Jeong’s system.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Kraftwerk and further in view of Schultz and Korean Patent Document No. KR 10-1186439 B1 by Suk et al., hereinafter “Suk”.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art reference combination of Jeong in view of Kraftwerk and further in view of Schultz renders the system of claim 9 unpatentable as explained above. However, the combination does not disclose a large funnel and a small funnel as claimed in claim 10.
In the same field of metal forming systems, Suk teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a large funnel (250 in Fig. 8; ¶[0103]) aligning a metal part with a small funnel (116 in Fig. 1; ¶[0047]) which aligns the metal part with the forming apparatus.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct Jeong’s pusher 25 as a large funnel communicating with a small funnel to align metal part 1 with induction work coil 32 in the same way Suk teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Suk to the combination of Jeong in view of Kraftwerk and Schultz would yield the predictable result of constructing Jeong’s pusher as a two-part funnel as Suk teaches.
Claims 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Schultz.
Regarding claim 16, Jeong anticipates the method of claim 13 as explained above. However, Jeong does not disclose the method comprises locating a position of the metal part using a part sensor and camera operatively and communicatively connected to the controller.
In the same field of metal forming systems, Schultz teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a part sensor and a camera operatively connected to a controller in a metal forming system. See at least paragraphs [0015], [0020] and [0037].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a part sensor and camera in Jeong’s method to control the system in the same way Schultz teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Schultz to Jeong’s method would yield the predictable result of using a part sensor and camera in Jeong’s method.
Regarding claim 19, Jeong anticipates the method of claim 13 as explained above. However, Jeong does not disclose determining the die based on a part number input into a user interface.
In the same field of metal forming systems, Schultz teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the die based upon a part number input into a user interface. See at least paragraph [0033] through [0041].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the die used in Jeong’s stamping unit 14 based upon the part number put into a user interface of Jeong’s system in the same way Schultz teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Schultz to Jeong’s method would yield the predictable result of determining the die to be used in Jeong’s stamping unit 14 based upon the part number intended to be manufactured by Jeong’s method.
Regarding claim 20, Jeong discloses a metal forming system, comprising:
an induction coil configured for heating a metal part (induction work coil 32 in Fig. 4 heats metal part 1);
a die configured for shaping the metal part (the die in stamping unit 14 in Fig. 2 shapes metal part 1);
a temperature sensor (temperature sensor 40 in Fig. 10) configured to detect a temperature of the metal part wherein the temperature sensor is communicatively connected to a controller (temperature sensor 40 is communicatively connected to controller 50 in Fig. 10); and
the controller configured to determine the temperature of the metal part, and shape the metal part using the die (metal part 1 in Fig. 2 is shaped in the die in stamping unit 14).
Jeong does not disclose a part sensor as claimed in claim 20.
In the same field of metal forming systems, Schultz teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a part sensor operatively connected to a controller in a metal forming system to detect the position of the part being formed. See at least paragraphs [0015], [0020] and [0037].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a part sensor on Jeong’s support plate 21 at pusher 25 to sense the position of metal part 1 relative to induction work coil 32 and the die in stamping unit 14. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Schultz to Jeon’s system would yield the predictable result of adding a sensor to Jeong’s pusher 25 to determine the position of part 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Suk does not teach the funnels have adjustable sidewalls as claimed in claim 11. Citing further prior art in addition to Jeong, Kraftwerk, Schultz and Suk to arrive at the invention as claimed in claim 11, with all of the limitations of the intervening claims, to arrive at the claimed invention would require undue hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern.
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.
/P DEREK PRESSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights