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 .
Election/Restrictions
Firstly, it is noted that the election of species requirement as set forth by the previous examiner in the requirement mailed 7/10/2023 is withdrawn. For example, for one thing, the so-called “Species A of Figure 1: A device that imparts three or more forces on a perimeter of a workpiece” does not appear to be (intended to be) mutually exclusive with respect to others of the species identified by the previous examiner in the requirement mailed 7/10/2023. Such withdrawal does not preclude an election by original presentation should Applicant later present claims that are specific to a species other than that set forth in the presently-elected claims of Group I.
Secondly, Applicant's election with traverse of the invention of Group I, claims 1-7, drawn to a “method for holding a workpiece”, in the reply filed on September 9, 2025 is acknowledged.
(As a side note, it appears that the previous examiner inadvertently incorrectly indicated that non-elected claims 17-22 of Group III are drawn to a “manufacturing process of a wheel”, though the claims of Group III are actually product-by-process claims drawn to the “wheel” itself, rather than being method claims. That said, the record appears to be clear as to Group III being identified as a product, as such fact was correctly noted in the paragraphs numbered as 4 and 5 of the restriction requirement mailed 7/10/2023, which correctly indicate that the claims of Group III are drawn to a product.)
Applicant elected with traverse, asserting the following:
The Office Action concludes that there would be a serious search and/or examination burden since the three groups have diverging subject matter requiring different search queries.
The Applicant respectfully disagrees with respect to Groups I and II. Rather a thorough search for a process of machining a workpiece would require a search of systems configured to perform such process and a search of such systems would inherently require a search relative to processes of machining a workpiece. The Applicant believes that since the pending claims of Groups I and II include a process and system for machining a workpiece, any search relative to Groups I and II would not impose a serious search/examination burden upon the Examiner. Therefore, the Applicant respectfully requests that the restriction requirement for Groups I and II be withdrawn for at least these reason(s).
However, this is not persuasive.
MPEP section 808 states:
Every requirement to restrict has two aspects: (A) the reasons (as distinguished from the mere statement of conclusion) why each invention as claimed is either independent or distinct from the other(s); and (B) the reasons why there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required…
Regarding part (B), which is the part pertaining to Applicant’s arguments, note that MPEP section 808.02 (titled “Establishing Burden”) notes that
Where the * inventions as claimed are shown to be independent or distinct under the criteria of MPEP § 806.05(c) - § 806.06, the examiner, in order to establish reasons for insisting upon restriction, must explain why there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required. Thus the examiner must show by appropriate explanation one of the following:
(A) Separate classification thereof : This shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. Patents need not be cited to show separate classification.
(B) A separate status in the art when they are classifiable together : Even though they are classified together, each invention can be shown to have formed a separate subject for inventive effort when the examiner can show a recognition of separate inventive effort by inventors. Separate status in the art may be shown by citing patents which are evidence of such separate status, and also of a separate field of search.
(C) A different field of search : Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries, a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. The indicated different field of search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. Patents need not be cited to show different fields of search.
Note that it is only necessary to show one of A, B, or C to establish burden. In the instant case, A was established, noting that the three groups of invention are classified in different subclasses, as set forth in paragraph 2 of the restriction requirement mailed July 10, 2023.
Additionally, C was also established, noting that the restriction requirement mailed July 10, 2023, in paragraph 6 thereof, noted that, at the very least, different classes/subclasses must be searched or different search queries would be necessary to search both groups.
Thus, burden has been properly established.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-22 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. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on September 9, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 464 (mentioned in at least paragraph 0024). 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 120 (in at least Figures 7-8); 255 (in at least Figure 10); 460 (in at least Figure 13); and 600 (in at least Figure 15). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
the specification uses the reference character “310” to refer to multiple different things (see paragraph 0020, which indicates that Figure 10 illustrates “one alternative example 310 embodiment of a jaw that applies two forces in lieu of a single force”, whereas paragraph 0021 instead says that reference character 310 is a “construction centerline”, and Figure 11 depicts reference character 310 as a construction centerline consistent with paragraph 0021); and
in paragraph 0025 and in Figure 14, the jaws are referenced (multiple times in paragraph 0025) as element 410, though this does not appear to be consistent with the way that the jaws 410 are depicted in Figure 12, nor with how the jaws 410 are described in paragraphs 0023 (noting that paragraph 0023 indicates that the jaws 410 each apply a single force to a workpiece, whereas in Figure 14 and paragraph 0025, the jaws 410 have a different configuration than the ones of Figure 12 and are described to indicate that each jaw 410 applies two forces); and
in paragraph 0026, it is noted that the reference character “610” is referenced as two different things, i.e., as both a “chuck base” and as a “jaw”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Comment
While such does not rise to the level of an objection or rejection, Applicant may wish to consider changing “work-piece” in claim 7, line 2 to –workpiece—to be consistent with the rest of the occurrences of “workpiece” in the elected claims.
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 1-7 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.
It is noted that independent claim 1 does not include a transitional phrase such as comprising, including, consisting of, or the like. That said, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether the limitations set forth in lines 3-7 are intended to be required to be part of the recited “method for holding fast a workpiece having a perimeter that includes a curved portion during machining” that is set forth in lines 1-2, or whether lines 3-7 recite additional functions/steps, i.e., additional to the recitation of “[A] method for holding fast a workpiece having a perimeter that includes a curved portion during machining” set forth in lines 1-2 of the claim.
The term “fast” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fast” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Firstly, it is unclear as claimed whether the term “fast” in line 1 of claim 1 is intended to mean “firmly” or “tightly” or similar, or whether “fast” in line 1 of claim 1 is instead intended to refer to a speed (e.g., “quickly”). Regardless of whether “fast” is intended to mean “firmly/tightly” or “quickly”, it is unclear how firm/tight a given holding operation must be in order to be considered to be a “fast” holding, and it is unclear how loose a given holding operation must be in order to be excluded by the term “fast”, and it is unclear how quickly the holding must occur in order to be considered to occur “fast”, and it is unclear how slowly the holding must occur in order to be excluded by the term “fast”.
In claim 1, lines 1-2, the claim sets forth “[A] method for holding fast a workpiece having a perimeter that includes a curved portion during machining”. However, it is unclear as claimed what is being set forth as occurring “during machining”, i.e., the method of holding fast a workpiece, or the perimeter having a curved portion. Grammatically, it appears that the latter is being recited. In the event that “during machining” is intended to reference the method for holding fast a workpiece, and assuming the rest of the suggested language is in line with Applicant’s intent, Applicant may wish to consider language such as –[A] method for, during machining, holding a workpiece having a perimeter that includes a curved portion, the method comprising:--.
In claim 2, the claim sets forth “wherein imparting a force upon the perimeter comprises imparting a set of two forces”. Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 recites “imparting upon the perimeter a minimum of three forces…”. However, it is unclear as set forth in claim 2 whether the step of “imparting a force upon the perimeter” is intended redefine the step of “imparting a force upon the perimeter” previously set forth in claim 1 as requiring (only) two forces instead of a minimum of three, whether the step of “imparting a force upon the perimeter” in claim 2 is instead intended to be a subset of the step in claim 1 of “imparting upon the perimeter a minimum of three forces”, or whether the step of “imparting a force upon the perimeter” in claim 2 is instead intended to be additional to the step of “imparting upon the perimeter a minimum of three forces” that was previously set forth in claim 1. Consequently, it is likewise unclear as set forth in claim 2 whether the “set of two forces” of claim 2 are intended to be instead of the minimum of three forces that were set forth in claim 1, is/are instead intended to be a subset of/part of the “minimum of three forces” of claim 1, or whether the “set of two forces” of claim 2 is/are instead intended to be additional to the “minimum of three forces” set forth in claim 1. The same situation exists in claim 3, i.e., claim 3 has a lack of clarity for the same reasoning.
In claim 4, the claim sets forth “wherein imparting a force upon the perimeter comprises imparting a force along a contact region that is substantially orthogonal to the primary work surface included in the workpiece”. Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 recites “imparting upon the perimeter a minimum of three forces…”. However, it is unclear as set forth in claim 4 whether the step of “imparting a force upon the perimeter” is intended to be a subset of the step in claim 1 of “imparting upon the perimeter a minimum of three forces…”, or whether the step of “imparting a force upon the perimeter” in claim 4 is instead intended to be additional to the step of “imparting upon the perimeter a minimum of three forces…” that was previously set forth in claim 1. The same situation exists in claim 5, i.e., claim 5 has a lack of clarity for the same reasoning, noting the limitation “wherein imparting a force upon the perimeter comprises imparting a force along a substantially convex contact region that is substantially orthogonal to the primary work surface included in the workpiece”.
In claim 4, the claim sets forth “wherein imparting a force upon the perimeter comprises imparting a force along a contact region that is substantially orthogonal to the primary work surface included in the workpiece”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “substantially orthogonal to the primary work surface included in the workpiece”, i.e., the contact region, or the imparted force.
In claim 5, the claim sets forth “wherein imparting a force upon the perimeter comprises imparting a force along a substantially convex contact region that is substantially orthogonal to the primary work surface included in the workpiece”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “substantially orthogonal to the primary work surface included in the workpiece”, i.e., the contact region, or the imparted force.
In claim 6, the claim sets forth “vertically supporting the perimeter of the workpiece”. However, it is unclear what configuration(s) is/are included by this limitation vs. what configuration(s) is/are excluded by this limitation. For example, it is unclear as claimed whether such is intended to refer to a direction of some (unspecified) “supporting” force applied to the workpiece, or to an orientation of the workpiece and/or the perimeter thereof, etc.
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.
Claims 2-3 are 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, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. 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.
As noted above in a separate rejection of claims 2-3 under 35 USC 112(b), in claim 2, the claim sets forth “wherein imparting a force upon the perimeter comprises imparting a set of two forces”. Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 recites “imparting upon the perimeter a minimum of three forces…”. However, it is unclear as set forth in claim 2 whether the step of “imparting a force upon the perimeter” is intended redefine the step of “imparting a force upon the perimeter” previously set forth in claim 1 as requiring (only) two forces instead of a minimum of three, whether the step of “imparting a force upon the perimeter” in claim 2 is instead intended to be a subset of the step in claim 1 of “imparting upon the perimeter a minimum of three forces”, or whether the step of “imparting a force upon the perimeter” in claim 2 is instead intended to be additional to the step of “imparting upon the perimeter a minimum of three forces” that was previously set forth in claim 1. Consequently, it is likewise unclear as set forth in claim 2 whether the “set of two forces” of claim 2 are intended to be instead of the minimum of three forces that were set forth in claim 1, is/are instead intended to be a subset of/part of the “minimum of three forces” of claim 1, or whether the “set of two forces” of claim 2 is/are instead intended to be additional to the “minimum of three forces” set forth in claim 1. The same situation exists in claim 3, i.e., claim 3 has a lack of clarity for the same reasoning.
That being said, in the event that claims 2-3 are intended to redefine the step of imparting upon the perimeter of a workpiece “a minimum number of three forces substantially coincident with a plane that is substantially parallel with a primary work surface included in the workpiece” as instead comprising “imparting a set of two forces” (re claim 2), or as instead comprising “imparting a set of two forces each substantially straddling a construction line emanating outward from a center-point of the workpiece” (re claim 3), then it is noted that claims 2-3 do not further limit claim 1 (since they would not include all of the limitations of claim 1).
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 1-6, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 10,875,102 to Rodriguez (hereinafter, “Rodriguez”).
Rodriguez teaches a method for holding “fast” (securely, for example, per at least col. 1, lines 25-30 and col. 5, lines 25-35) a workpiece (such as, for example, any of workpieces 106a, 106b, 106c, 106d, or 106e; see at least Figures 3D-1 to 3G and 4E-1 to 4E-2, as well as at least col. 6, lines 4-24, col. 6, lines 30-67, col. 7, lines 1-12, and col. 7, lines 39-48, for example) having a perimeter that includes a curved portion (see 106a-106d and Figures 3D-1 to 3G and 4E-1 to 4E-2, for example) during machining (milling; see at least col. 5, lines 18-35, for example):
imparting upon the perimeter a minimum of three forces (via the “at least” three jaws 210 taught by Rodriguez, i.e., at least one force per jaw; see Figures 3D-1 to 3G and 4E-1 to 4E-2, as well as at least col. 4, lines 48-63, col. 5, line 66 through col. 6, line 37, and col. 5, lines 30-35, for example) substantially coincident with a plane {e.g., a horizontal plane parallel to the topmost flat (horizontal) surface of any of the aforedescribed generally cylindrical workpieces 106a-106e} that is substantially parallel with a “primary” work surface {e.g., the topmost flat (horizontal) surface of any of the aforedescribed generally cylindrical workpieces 106a-106e} included in the workpiece (any of 106a-106e, for example) (see Figures 3A to 3G, 4D-2, and 4E-1 to 4E-2, and 2B-2H, as well as col. 6, lines 37-67, col. 7, lines 1-2, col. 7, lines 39-49, and col. 8, lines 29-58, noting that Rodriguez teaches that rotation of operating handle 218 serves to move the jaws 210 radially inwardly and outwardly along the direction of axes/arrows 242, which arrows are shown in Figure 4D-2, for example, which radial movement of the jaws 210 inwardly and outwardly serves to move the jaws 210 into engagement with a perimeter of the workpiece 106a-106e being clamped in a manner so as to apply at least one respective force per jaw to the workpiece perimeter in a horizontal plane that is radial with respect to the center 220, and which is thus parallel to the aforedescribed “primary” surface of the work/workpiece 106a, 106b, 106 c, 106d, or 106e), and
increasing the magnitude of said forces (by rotating operating handle 218) in a substantially equal manner when a tightening gear (pinion 302 and/or scroll plate 300) is engaged (see Figures 11A-11L, 2C, 3D-1, 3D-3 to 3F-2, and 4D-2, as well as col. 9, lines 47-65, col. 10, lines 51-55, col. 12, lines 49-55, col. 13, lines 25-55, and col. 14, line 8 through col. 15, line 17, noting that the operating handle 218 engages handle engagement section 266 of a drive shaft 268 of drive mechanism 304, and that the drive shaft 268 includes the pinion 302, which pinion 302 engages cogs 420 on gear-side 402 of scroll plate 300 to rotate the scroll plate 300, and that the scroll plate 300 also has rail guides 378 shown in Fig. 11J that engage interlocking cogs 374 of actuator members 214 so as to cause actuator members 214 to move radially relative to center 220, which actuator members 214 are engaged with jaws 210 such that the in-unison radial movement of the actuator members 214 likewise results in the radial movement of the jaws 210 to “tighten” the jaws 210 against the perimeter of the workpiece 106a-e being clamped, which thus increases the magnitude of the forces applied by the jaws 210 to the workpiece perimeter in a “substantially equal” manner).
Regarding claim 2, imparting a force upon the perimeter (of any of the aforedescribed workpieces 106a-106e) comprises imparting a set of two forces (such as two of the forces applied when the “at least three” jaws 210 taught by Rodriguez are tightened to clamp the workpiece, as described above).
Regarding claim 3¸ Rodriguez teaches that imparting a force upon the perimeter (of any of the workpieces 106a-e) comprises imparting a set of two forces (such as the radial force applied by a first one of the jaws 110a labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 3B below as J1, and such as the radial force applied by a second one of the jaws 110a that is labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 3B below as J2, which jaws J1, J2 each apply a respective radial force to a perimeter of the workpiece as described above) each (radial force of jaws J1, J2) “substantially straddling” a construction line (such as the line labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 3B below as L1, which is located in the gap between jaws J1, J2) emanating outward from a center-point (in the middle of center 220) of the (aforedescribed) workpiece (any of 106a-106e). See at least Figure 3B, for example.
[AltContent: textbox (J2)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (J1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (L1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
646
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4¸ Rodriguez teaches imparting a force upon the perimeter (of any of the workpieces 106a-106e) comprises imparting a force along a contact region (of either: (i) one of the jaws 210, or (ii) the perimeter of the workpiece, which perimeter is being contacted by the jaws 210 in a holding/clamping manner) that is substantially orthogonal to the (aforedescribed) “primary” work surface {i.e., the aforedescribed topmost flat (horizontal) surface of any of the aforedescribed generally cylindrical workpieces 106a-106e} included in the workpiece. See, for example, Figures 3A, 3D-1 to 3G, and 4E-1 to 4E-2, as well as at least col. 6, lines 4-24, col. 6, lines 30-67, col. 7, lines 1-12, and col. 7, lines 39-48, for example, noting that the vertical surfaces 226 or 230 of protrusion(s) 216 of the jaws 210 that contact the workpiece(s), as well as the vertical surface(s) of the workpiece(s) that is/are being contacted by such vertical surfaces of 216, are substantially orthogonal to the aforedescribed horizontal “primary” surface of the work/workpiece 106a-106e.
Regarding claim 5, Rodriguez teaches that imparting a force upon the perimeter (of the workpiece 106a-106e) comprises imparting a (radial, as described previously) force “along” a substantially convex contact region that is substantially orthogonal to the (aforedescribed) primary work surface {i.e., the aforedescribed topmost flat (horizontal) surface of any of the aforedescribed generally cylindrical workpieces 106a-106e} included in the workpiece (any of 106a-106e). See, for example, Figures 3A, 3D-1 to 3G, and 4E-1 to 4E-2, as well as at least col. 6, lines 4-24, col. 6, lines 30-67, col. 7, lines 1-12, and col. 7, lines 39-48, for example, noting that for the workpieces 106a-b, 106d, and 106e, for example, Rodriguez teaches that the above-described (radial) forces applied by the (surfaces 226 of the) jaws 210 to a perimeter of the workpiece are imparted “along” a substantially convex contact region (i.e., the outer circular surface) of the workpiece, and noting that for the workpiece 106c, for example, Rodriguez teaches that the above-described (radial) forces applied by the (surfaces 230 of the) jaws 210 to a perimeter of the workpiece are imparted “along” a substantially convex contact region (i.e., the surfaces 230) of the jaws 210.
Regarding claim 6, Rodriguez teaches “vertically supporting” the perimeter of the workpiece (any of 106a-e). See, for example, Figures 3A, 3D-1 to 3G, and 4E-1 to 4E-2, as well as at least col. 6, lines 4-24, col. 6, lines 30-67, col. 7, lines 1-12, and col. 7, lines 39-48, for example. Note that, for example, each of the workpieces 106a-e has a perimeter that is “vertically supported” in that the perimeter of each of 106a-e is oriented vertically while that perimeter is being clamped/”supported” by the holding device 200 (and jaws 210 thereof). Additionally/alternatively, note that the workpieces 106a-e each have a perimeter that is “vertically supported” in that the bottom of each of the workpieces 106a-e is supported on an upper face of the jaws 210 (Figures 3A, 3D-1 to 3G, and 4E-1 to 4E-2, for example).
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 7, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 10,875,102 to Rodriguez (hereinafter, “Rodriguez”) as applied to at least claim 1 above.
Rodriguez teaches all the aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were described in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
However, regarding claim 7, Rodriguez does not expressly teach applying a downward force to the work-piece (any of 106a-106e, for example) to substantially preclude vertical movement of the workpiece relative to the (aforedescribed) three or more forces imparted to the perimeter of said workpiece.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known to apply additional one or more downward (i.e., “hold-down”) forces to a workpiece being milled in order provide additional/extra firm/tight holding of the workpiece, to thereby increase precision by preventing undesirable movement of the workpiece during the machining thereof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided any of the workpieces 106a-106e taught by Rodriguez with an additional downward “hold-down” force, as is well-known, for achieving the well-known purpose/benefit of providing additional/extra firm/tight holding of the workpiece, to thereby increase precision by preventing undesirable movement of the workpiece during the machining thereof.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA E CADUGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 5:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and via 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/ERICA E CADUGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
eec
November 18, 2025