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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II, claims 4-6, in the reply filed on 05 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05 December 2025.
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 4-6 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 recites the limitation "an upper die that includes a die and a pair of pressing pads" in line 7. The claim further recites that a center portion of the work piece is clamped between “the die” and the punch. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “the die” refers to (i) the die included within the upper die, (ii) the upper die itself, or (iii) another die structure. Therefore, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyagi et al. (US 9,839,954 B2).
Claim 4:
Miyagi discloses a press forming die that is used to press form a work piece (50), and is used for manufacturing a vehicle pillar including: an upper pillar portion that is coupled to a roof rail, when the vehicle pillar is assembled to a vehicle body; a lower pillar portion that is coupled to a side sill, when the vehicle pillar is assembled to the vehicle body; and a center pillar portion that connects the upper pillar portion and the lower pillar portion, and extends in a height direction of the vehicle body (abstract, figs. 1 and 6, c1, ll. 17-28), the press forming die comprising:
an upper die (64b, 64c) that includes a die and a pair of pressing pads (64b, 64c) (figs. 7-9, c9, ll. 33-45); and
a lower die (62, 66) that includes a punch (62) and a pair of blank holders (66) (figs. 7-9, c8, ll. 56-64),
wherein the upper die (64b, 64c) and the lower die (62, 66) are configured such that both ends of the work piece (50) in a longer side direction are clamped between the pressing pads (64b, 64c) and the punch (62), before a center portion of the work piece (50) is clamped between the die and the punch (62) to form the work piece (50) (figs. 7-9, c10, ll. 1-4).
Claim 5:
Miyagi discloses the press forming die according to claim 4, wherein one of the ends (72, 74) of the work piece (50) in the longer side direction, that is clamped between the pressing pads (64b, 64c) and the punch (62) is a part of a portion to be formed as the upper pillar portion of the vehicle pillar, and the other of the ends (72, 74) of the work piece (50) in the longer side direction, that is clamped between the pressing pads (64b, 64c) and the punch (62) is a part of a portion to be formed as the lower pillar portion of the vehicle pillar (figs. 7-10, c10, ll. 39-50).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagi et al. (US 9,839,954 B2).
Claim 6:
Miyagi discloses the press forming die according to claim 4; and Miyagi fails to disclose either one of the ends of the work piece disposed on the lower die in the longer side direction, includes an inclined surface that is inclined downward or upward relative to a horizontal direction, clamping surfaces for clamping the inclined surface are formed on the pressing pads and the punch that clamp the inclined surface, and opposing surfaces are formed at outer positions in the horizontal direction of the clamping surfaces formed on the pressing pads and the punch that clamp the inclined surface, the opposing surfaces being inclined in an opposite direction to the inclined surface relative to the horizontal direction.
Instead, Miyagi teaches the use of cooperating die and punch surfaces having inclined, curved or non-parallel forming relationships to engage and shape the side portions of the workpiece, as evidenced by Miyagi’s disclosure that punch side surfaces 61b/61c and die side surfaces 66b form the vertical walls and side surfaces of the center pillar reinforcement, including curved/tapered substantially T-shaped portions whose widths expand gradually and whose wall height decrease gradually toward the end portions (figs. 1-10, c6, ll. 3-14; c7, ll. 4-10 and c9, ll. 21-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide correspondingly inclined clamping surfaces a the end-clamping regions of the tooling, including oppositely inclined retaining surfaces, to improve retention of an inclined end portion of the workpiece during forming and thereby prevent displacement of the workpiece relative to the tooling. See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The results would have been predictable because the ordinary artisan, having possessed the ordinary skill to form and clamp inclined side portions of a workpiece using corresponding die and punch surfaces as taught by Miyagi, would likewise have possessed the skill to apply the same known forming and clamping principles to inclined end portions of the workpiece. Such modification would have merely involved the application of a known technique to a known device to obtain the predictable result of securely clamping and positioning an inclined portion of the workpiece during forming.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kubo (US 2025/0196219 A1) discloses a method for producing a structural member using a press forming die.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights