DETAILED ACTION
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 4 and 8 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. Claim 4 contradicts claim 1 since claim 1 requires the step to be “subsequently” press formed, which means that it cannot be performed “in one step” as recited in claim 4. Claim 8 is rejected by dependence on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. The Examiner is unable to ascertain any feature in claim 2 that further limits claim 1 since the clauses and phrasing in claim 2 appear to be identical. Given that claim 3 introduces a low step portion in the first forming step with a size difference, it could be the case that claim 2 was intended to incorporate a step in the first forming step, and claim 3 was intended to introduce a relative size difference between the first forming step and second forming step, but this is not what is currently claimed.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 20200101514).
As to claims 1 and 2, Suzuki teaches a method of manufacturing a press-formed product (the part inside the mold in Fig. 21) including a top plate portion and a vertical wall portion continuous from the top plate portion via a ridgeline portion (compare Fig. 21, item 22 to instant Fig. 12). The Suzuki press-formed product has a target shape in which a step portion having a concave shape or a convex shape in a cross section orthogonal to the ridgeline portion is formed in the top plate portion in an extending direction of the ridgeline portion (see Fig. 21, item 310A).
Suzuki teaches press-forming a blank into an intermediate formed product (Fig. 20, item 18) including an intermediate top plate portion (above item 304G) and an intermediate vertical wall portion (below item 304G) continuous from the intermediate top plate portion via an intermediate ridgeline portion (at 304G). Suzuki teaches applying bending deformation to the intermediate ridgeline portion (Figs. 7-8). Suzuki teaches subsequently press-forming the intermediate formed product into the press- formed product having the target shape by forming a step portion having a concave shape in the intermediate top plate portion of the intermediate formed product (Fig. 20 and Fig. 21, at 302G).
Suzuki does not specifically teach “bending-back deformation is applied to the intermediate ridgeline portion by drawing the intermediate ridgeline portion to the intermediate top plate portion side.”
The claimed bending-back deformation would be a result of the depth of the concave shape in the intermediate top plate portion, and Suzuki does not appear to teach any particular depth for the concave portion. However, the ordinary artisan practicing the Suzuki process would have obviously/inherently selected the depth of the concave shape as a matter of routine optimization. Selection of larger depths for the concave shape would have would have obviously drawn the intermediate ridgeline portion to the intermediate top plate portion side.
Regarding claim 2, it appears that claim 2 recites the same features as claim 1, and therefore the rejection of claim 1 above is also applicable to instant claim 2.
As to claim 3, to the extent that Suzuki provides an intermediate formed product with a projection or bulge above the equivalent of the claimed intermediate top plate portion, this is interpreted to meet the claimed “low step” portion. In the Suzuki second forming step, the bulge is reset or set to a step height of the target shape in a manner that meets claim 3. See rejection of claim 1. As to claim 4, Suzuki performs the press-forming of the intermediate product and subsequently pressing the target shape with the step portion, which is interpreted as being performed in one step (between the step of providing the sheet and using the press-formed sheet).
Claim 4 is alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 20200101514) in view of Nakao (US 20110016945). Suzuki teaches the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 4, in the alternative that Suzuki’s process cannot be considered a single step, Nakao teaches a single step depicted in Figs. 3-6 of a single step of forming a product having a similar or same configuration as that already taught by Suzuki.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate this feature from Nakao into Suzuki because this is the use of a known technique to improve a similar process. Suzuki provides the base process, upon which the claimed process can be viewed as an improvement by combining the steps already disclosed by Suzuki. Nakao shows that a similar shaped article can be formed in a single step, and is therefore improved in the same way as the claimed invention. One could have applied the same improvement to Suzuki by simply using the steps shown by Nakao with the Suzuki configuration.
Claims 5-8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 20200101514) in view of Dodds (US 840,830). Suzuki teaches the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claims 5-8, Suzuki provides a top plate portion with an extending ridgeline portion and the press-forming with a step portion in the top plate, but is silent to a dividing step of cutting the top.
Dodds teaches a process for producing multiple articles from a metal sheet by forming a rib and cutting the rib (claim 1, for example). In the combination of Suzuki’s rib with the teaching from Dodds, one would have recognized it obvious to cut the top of the Suzuki rib (the top plate) in order to similarly form multiple articles.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Dodds technique into Suzuki motivated by forming multiple articles from the Suzuki rib in the same way taught by Dodds. In light of the similar configuration of the Dodds rib and the Suzuki rib, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 20200101514) in view of Nakao (US 20110016945), and further in view of Dodds (US 840,830). Suzuki and Nakao provide an alternate rejection of claim 4 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 8, Suzuki provides a top plate portion with an extending ridgeline portion and the press-forming with a step portion in the top plate, but is silent to a dividing step of cutting the top.
Dodds teaches a process for producing multiple articles from a metal sheet by forming a rib and cutting the rib (claim 1, for example). In the combination of Suzuki’s rib with the teaching from Dodds, one would have recognized it obvious to cut the top of the Suzuki rib (the top plate) in order to similarly form multiple articles.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Dodds technique into Suzuki motivated by forming multiple articles from the Suzuki rib in the same way taught by Dodds. In light of the similar configuration of the Dodds rib and the Suzuki rib, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination.
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