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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because poor quality and difficult to recognize the details.
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
Claims 1 and 8-9 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “into a hollow fold (125) in a second bending step” should be changed to “into the hollow fold (125) in a second bending step”.
Claim 8 should be re-written as following:
A sheet bending method for producing the hollow fold (125) on the sheet (103) with the swivel bending machine of claim 1, comprising steps of:
(A) Placing the sheet (103) with the sheet section (115), which is initially to be pre-bent to the acute angle, on the lower beam (101) of the swivel bending machine (100),
(B) clamping of the sheet between the upper beam (105) having the wedge- shaped bending edge (107) and the lower beam (101),
(C) bending of the sheet section (115) protruding between the upper beam and the lower beam by means of the bending beam (109) in the first bending step along the wedge-shaped bending edge (107) to the acute angle,
(D) moving the wedge-shaped bending edge (107) out of the sheet section (115) pre-bent to the acute angle, and
(E) further bending of the sheet section (115) in the second bending step into the hollow fold (125) by further swiveling of the bending beam (109), while the sheet (103) is fixed against the lower beam (101) by means of the wedge-shaped bending edge (107).
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “a movement device (111)” should be changed to “the movement device (111)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 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.
The lack of clear transitional phrases in independent claim 1 render the claims indefinite as it cannot clearly be determined where the preamble ends and the body of the claim starts. See MPEP 2111.03.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sheet section" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, in line 12 the phrase “the sheet section (115) pre-bent to an acute angle” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the sheet section (115) pre-bent to an acute angle” is the same as or different from “bending the sheet section (115) of the sheet (103) protruding be-tween the upper beam and the lower beam in a first bending step along the wedge-shaped bending edge (107) to an acute angle” that recited in lines 7-9 of the same claim 1; and it is unclear if “an acute angle” is the same as or different from “an acute angle” that recited in lines 9-10 of the same claim 1.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination, the Examiner interpreted “the sheet section (115) pre-bent to an acute angle” is the same as “bending the sheet section (115) of the sheet (103) protruding be-tween the upper beam and the lower beam in a first bending step along the wedge-shaped bending edge (107) to an acute angle” that recited in lines 7-9 of the same claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, in line 14 the phrase “the sheet section (115) pre-bent into an acute angle” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “an acute angle” is the same as or different from “an acute angle” that recited in lines 9-10 of the same claim 1.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination, the Examiner interpreted “an acute angle” is the same as or different from “an acute angle” that recited in lines 9-10 of the same claim 1.
Claims 2-11 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “a plurality of bending edges” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a plurality of bending edges” is the same as or different from “a wedge-shaped bending edge” that recited in claim 1 which claim 4 depends from.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination, the Examiner interpreted ““a plurality of bending edges” is the same as “a wedge-shaped bending edge” that recited in claim 1.
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 1-2, 5, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hershberger (US20200122211A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hershberger discloses a swivel bending machine (abstract and fig.1: (100)) for producing a hollow fold on a sheet (fig.3: (218)) with:
- a lower beam (fig.3: (213)) for supporting the sheet,
- an upper beam (fig.3: (214)) with a wedge-shaped bending edge for clamping the sheet between the upper beam and the lower beam,
- a rotatable or pivotable bending beam (fig.3: (223) and (224)) for bending the sheet section of the sheet (103) protruding be-tween the upper beam and the lower beam in a first bending step along the wedge-shaped bending edge to an acute angle (fig.6A), and
- a movement device (fig.3: (262)) for moving the wedge-shaped bending edge out of the sheet section pre-bent to an acute angle,
wherein the swivel bending machine is set up to further bend the sheet section (115) pre-bent into an acute angle into a hollow fold (125) in a second bending step with further actuation of the bending beam between the bending beam and the lower beam, while the sheet is fixed against the lower beam by the wedge-shaped bending edge (figs.5-6; paragraphs 0034-0037 and 0044).
Regarding claim 2, Hershberger discloses wherein the movement device comprises a displacement device for linearly pulling out the wedge- shaped bending edge (fig.3 and paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 5, Hershberger discloses wherein the bending beam comprises a bending bar (fig.3: (223) and (224)) for bending the sheet section.
The method steps recited in claims 8-10 would be met during the normal
operation of the apparatus disclosed by Mitchell et al. They are inherent method of use of Hershberger machine.
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hershberger (US20200122211A1) in view of Shigeru (JPS6420915U attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claims 3-4, Hershberger does not disclose wherein the movement device comprises a rotating device for turning out or swiveling out the wedge-shaped bending edge; and wherein the rotating device comprises a plurality of bending edges.
Shigeru teaches a bending machine comprising:
a movement device comprises a rotating device for turning out or swiveling out a wedge-shaped bending edge; and wherein the rotating device comprises a plurality of bending edges (page 1).
Both of the prior arts Hershberger and Shigeru are related to a bending machine;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the movement device of the apparatus of Hershberger to have a rotating device for turning out or swiveling out the wedge-shaped bending edge; and wherein the rotating device comprises a plurality of bending edges as taught by Shigeru, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Claims 6-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hershberger (US20200122211A1) in view of Kutschker (US20050160781A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 11, Hershberger does not disclose wherein the bending bar or the bending beam comprises a crowning; and wherein a deflection of the bending beam during the bending is compensated by a crowning.
Kutschker teaches a bending machine comprising:
a bending beam comprises a crowning for uniformly producing the hollow fold; and wherein the rotating device comprises a plurality of bending edges
Both of the prior arts Hershberger and Kutschker are related to a bending machine;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Hershberger to have a crowning as taught by Kutschker, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]. Thereby having wherein the bending bar or the bending beam comprises a crowning; and wherein a deflection of the bending beam during the bending is compensated by a crowning.
Regarding claim 7, Hershberger discloses wherein the bending bar (fig.3: (223) and (224)) has a profile which is vertically crowned in the longitudinal direction of the machine (fig.3).
Therefore, the modification of Ikebuchi in view of LI teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Conclusion
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
