DETAILED ACTION
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 1 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shunsuke (KR 20180102607) in view of Mead (US 5,292,475).
As to claim 1, Shunsuke teaches a method for manufacturing a press-formed (Abstract) product including at least a top plate portion, a vertical wall portion, and a ridge portion which is a connection portion between the top plate portion and the vertical wall portion. See annotated Fig. 2 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
393
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Shunsuke reference teaches a first step of press-forming a metal sheet blank into an intermediate formed product having an intermediate top plate portion, intermediate vertical wall portion, and an intermediate ridge portion connecting the intermediate top plate portion and intermediate vertical wall portion (Fig. 2(a) and Fig. 4(b), item L2). Shunsuke teaches a second forming step of press-forming the intermediate formed product into the press-formed product (Fig. 2(a) and Fig. 4(b), item L1).
Shunsuke teaches the intermediate formed product, but is silent to the intermediate formed product including a convex portion having a height higher than a reference height of a (intermediate) top plate surface or a plurality of positions of the intermediate top plate portion including the intermediate ridge portion.
Mead teaches a two-step forming process where a transition between an intermediate top plate portion and intermediate vertical wall is provided with a convex portion having a height higher than an intermediate top plate surface. See annotated Fig. 4 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
397
655
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Mead convex portion into Shunsuke motivated by improving conformance of the article to the mold corners (see Mead Figs. 4-7). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because even though Mead uses a composite material, a composite sheet would behave similarly to the Shunsuke sheet when molding a channel structure and conforming to a corner.
As to claim 6, in the Mead first forming step which produces a convex portion higher than a reference height of the top plate surface in the intermediate ridge portion, one would have found it obvious to provide this convex portion the full extent of the intermediate ridge portion.
As to claim 7, Shunsuke provides a press-formed product including a vertical flange portion. See annotated Fig. 2 below.
PNG
media_image3.png
439
420
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 8, Shunsuke teaches a press-formed product includes a vertical wall and top plate portion curved in a top view and the vertical wall is continuous with an inner side of a curve of the top plate portion. In the combination with Mead in the rejection of claim 1 above, the convex portion would have obviously been provided in – and to the end of – the intermediate ridge portion. See annotated Fig. 2 below.
PNG
media_image4.png
476
563
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 are 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: The prior art does not provide an intermediate vertical side portion lower than a height of the vertical side portion in the target product shape, as required in claim 2, in combination with the other features in claim 1.
The prior art most applicable to the pending claims are the following:
(i) The combination of Shunsuke and Mead above, which provides a multistage striking process to reform a corner, but lacks an intermediate vertical side portion lower than a height of the vertical side portion in the target product shape.
(ii) Marx (WO2018115282) which provides a multistage striking process with convex/raised portions in order to eliminate springback (Fig. 2, Fig. 5), but does not provide an intermediate vertical side portion lower than a height of the vertical side portion in the target product shape. A possible rejection over Shunsuke in view of Marx was considered as an alternative/additional grounds of rejection, but would provide substantially the same features as Shunsuke and Mead, and is therefore omitted as duplicative.
(iii) Nakao (US 20110016945) provides a multistage striking process with convex/raised portions, but does not provide an intermediate vertical side portion lower than a height of the vertical side portion in the target product shape. A possible rejection over Nakao (possibly in view of Shunsuke) was considered as an alternative/additional grounds of rejection, but would provide substantially the same features as Shunsuke and Mead, and is therefore omitted as duplicative.
It should be noted that the indicated allowability of claim 2 is consistent with the translation of the PCT/JP2023/035138 International Search Report which cites no documents of particular relevance for claim 2.
Claims 3-5 are allowed by dependence on claim 2.
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