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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 6, 8, 9, 12, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neely et al. (6,233,797), hereinafter Neely in view of Chamberlain et al. (2016/0185092), hereinafter Chamberlain and Maheshwari et al. (2010/0163167), hereinafter Maheshwari.
Regarding claim 1, Neely teaches a tooling assembly for perforating a fibrous preform substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts, the tooling assembly comprising:
a tooling fixture 8 comprising a plurality of receiving holes 12; and
a spiked array comprising:
a plate 2 having a plurality of guide holes 4 extending completely through the plate, wherein the plate has a curved geometry and wherein the guide holes are open to an outer surface of the tooling assembly opposite the fibrous preform; and
a plurality of metallic spikes 5 coated with a ceramic material and projecting away from the plate, wherein at least a first subset of the plurality of metallic spikes is received in the plurality of guide holes;
wherein the spiked array is engageable with the tooling fixture such that the plurality of metallic spikes 5 extend at least partially into respective ones of the plurality of receiving holes 12.
See Fig. 1.
Neely does not teach the plate having a curved geometry.
Maheshwari teaches a workpiece having a curved geometry. See Fig. 1.
Therefore, it would been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the tooling assembly in Neely having a curved geometry for accommodating workpieces having a curved geometry.
Neely does not the material of the spikes 5.
Chamberlain teaches metallic spikes coated with a ceramic material (Para [0013], Ln 1-6, Para [0029], Ln 10-16) and further teaches the advantage of such coating being higher wear resistance.
Therefore, it would therefore have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tooling assembly of Neely, by coating the spikes with a ceramic material, as taught by Chamberlain, in order to improve wear resistance of the metal spikes.
Regarding claims 2-3, Neely teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the spikes spaced apart a distance ranging 1.00-10mm.
Maheshwari further discloses each spike of the plurality of metallic spikes is spaced apart from an adjacent one of the plurality of spikes a distance ranging from 1.0 mm and 10 mm (para [0021], Ln 9-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to arrange the spikes a distance ranging from 1.0 mm and 10 mm for applications that require the perforated holes a distance ranging from 1.0 mm and 10 mm.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to arrange the spikes a distance ranging from 1.0 mm and 10 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, the tip of spikes having a tapered section is best seen in Fig. 1 in Neely.
Regarding claim 6, the tool fixture 8 comprising a plate with the plurality of receiving hole 12 is best seen in Fig. 1 in Neely
Regarding claim 8, Neely teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the tool fixture made from graphite or metallic material. To select a well-known material such as graphite or metallic material for the fixture plate would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 9, Neely teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the spiked array comprising a plurality of plates, each having spikes projected therefrom.
Maheshwari teaches tooling assembly comprising a spike array 24 including a plurality of plates, each having spikes projected therefrom for perforating curved workpieces. See Fig. 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the tooling assembly in Neely comprising a plurality of spiked plates for perforating curved workpiece.
Regarding claims 12 and 22, Neely teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the spiked array comprising a plurality of plates, each having spikes projected therefrom.
Maheshwari teaches tooling assembly comprising a spike array 24 including a plurality of plates, each having spikes projected therefrom for perforating curved workpieces. See Fig. 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the tooling assembly in Neely comprising a plurality of spiked plates for perforating curved workpiece.
Neely does not teach some spikes attached to locations without guide holes.
Maheshwari teaches a plate 24 with spikes attached to without guide holes. See Fig. 2.
To attach the spikes to the plate through the guide holes or to directly attach the spikes to the plate as an integral piece is art equivalent known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to attach the spikes to the plate as an integral piece since it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to one skilled in the art. See MPEP. 2144.06.
Regarding claim 21, Neely teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the spikes being arranged at non-uniform angles.
Maheshwari teaches the spikes being arranged at non-uniform angles for perforating a curved workpiece. See Fig. 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to arrange the spikes in Neely at non-uniform angles as taught by Maheshwari for perforating a curved workpiece.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights