DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim I, drawn to a process (claim 1).
Group II, claim II, drawn to a blank (claim 2).
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require certain (but not all) features of the blank, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art of Cox (US 3,263,637).
Cox teaches that a metal sheet is drawn in a first deep drawing step over a specially shaped punch (3:15-16; Fig. 5) to create a blank. The blank is thereafter further formed in a second deep drawing step (that meets the configuration in instant claim 1) to its final shape. Cox places the blank in a punch of the desired final shape and tightly gripping the flange area to prevent movement (2:27-30). While Cox does not specifically show the shape of the flange prior to the second deep drawing step, since the blank is tightly gripped in the flange area to prevent movement (2:27-30), the flange would have the same configuration before and after the second deep drawing step. This flange shape is shown in Fig. 2 and meets the technical feature present in both claims 1 and 2.
During a telephone message from Mark Weiner on August 13, 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claim 1. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 2 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 3,263,637) in view of Kitzinger (US 2,843,071).
As to claim 1, Cox teaches a deep drawing process including first and second deep drawing steps where the steps in instant claim 1 are met by the second drawing step of Cox in combination with the specific apparatus features of Kitzinger.
Cox teaches that a metal sheet is drawn in a first deep drawing step over a specially shaped punch (3:15-16; Fig. 5) to create a blank. The blank is thereafter further formed in a second deep drawing step (that meets the steps in instant claim 1) to its final shape. Cox places the blank in a punch of the desired final shape and tightly gripping the flange area to prevent movement (2:27-30). While Cox does not specifically show the shape of the flange prior to the second deep drawing step, since the blank is tightly gripped in the flange area to prevent movement (2:27-30), the flange would have the same configuration before and after the second deep drawing step. This flange shape is shown in Cox’s annotated Fig. 2 below. While the Cox drawing dimensions cannot be used to show the relative position of the curved region relative to the flange (MPEP 2125), the Cox device could be used to form parts (item 22) of any size. When a smaller part is formed, the claimed lines and intersection points would be met by Cox. Compare Cox Fig. 2 to instant Fig. 5B below. While lines L1, L2 and other features are omitted from the annotated Cox figure for clarity, a smaller article would meet all claimed lines and overall configuration.
PNG
media_image1.png
541
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
514
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Cox Fig. 2
Instant Fig. 5B
Cox teaches a second press die (2:27-30, punch) and the surfaces that clamp the blank likely meet the first press die and third press die even though they are not specifically shown in Cox. Even if it is ultimately determined that the Cox device does not meet all claimed features of the die(s), Kitzinger shows these features more specifically.
Kitzinger provides a similar press with a first press die and a third press die which clamp a blank (Fig. 2, items 23, 24, 40, A) and a second press die (21) is pressed against the blank to form an article that has a shape similar to that already shown in Cox. In view of curved corner on the Kitzinger article (Fig. 1), the first press die obviously has a ridge of a press hole with a curved region at the corner.
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Kitzinger press into Cox because Cox teaches/suggests clamping and forming with a punch, and this is what Kitzinger shows within the scope of this teaching/suggestion. There is a reasonable expectation of success in light of the similarity of the Kitzinger and Cox articles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights