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 .
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 08/14/2025 has been entered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the last sentence refers to purported merits of the invention. Correction is required. MPEP § 608.01(b). No new matter should be entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“is located as a center” (claim 1, line 16) should be changed to --is located at a center--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
Examiner is aware of Applicant’s copending application: 18/079,868, titled “ADJUSTABLE FLIP STOP”, which has pending claims directed to similar subject matter. Currently, the claims in this application and the copending application are sufficiently delineated and are patentably distinct from each other. Accordingly, a statutory double patenting rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is not appropriate at this time, but may be applied should the claims of this application and/or the copending application be amended such that the claims of this application are no longer patentably distinct from the claims of the copending application. MPEP § 804.
Applicant is advised of its duty of disclosure, candor, and good faith to identify copending applications that disclose similar subject matter as well as prior art and other information from copending applications that is material to the patentability of this application. MPEP §§ 2001.04, 2001.05, 2001.06, 2001.06(a)-(e).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Duginske in view of Duxbury and Hoffmann
Claims 1, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20030056631 A1 (“Duginske”) in view of US 11345057 B1 (“Duxbury”) and US 443676 A (“Hoffmann”).
Duginske pertains to a flip stop for supporting a workpiece (Abstr.; Figs. 1-4). Duxbury pertains to a flip stop for supporting a workpiece (Abstr.; Figs. 3-5). These references are in the same field of endeavor. Hoffmann pertains to a sliding holder for a cigar cutting device and is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it relates to the design of a clamp/holder that is slidable along the length of a slot (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 1, Duginske discloses a flip stop for being mounted on a T-track (Figs. 1-4; ¶ 0044, flip stop as shown is mounted on T-track 46), the flip stop comprising:
a body (Figs. 1-4, 5B, 6-8, body 30) having
two opposite sides respectively being a nut side and a track side (Figs. 1-4, 5B, 6-8, body 30 with nut side 52 opposite track side 62; because the disclosed device is reversible such that the nut side can be used as the track side and vice-versa, this rejection will use the configuration shown in Figs. 6-8 where the nut side is 52 and the track side is 62);
and an abutting portion disposed near the track side and tapering toward the track side (Figs. 1-4, 5B, 6-8, abutting portion at track side 62 with tapering 64 and 66 towards track side 62);
a fixing component (Figs. 1-4, bolt 34 and nut 20) having
a bolt located through the body and having a bolt head located near the track side of the body and being configured to allow the flip stop to move along the T-track (Figs. 1-4, bolt 34 with bolt head near track side 62 that is capable of sliding inside a track (e.g., Fig. 3, bolt head of bolt 34 inside track slot 106));
and a nut configured to be threaded with the bolt to locate the body between the nut and the bolt head of the bolt, the nut located near the nut side of the body (Fig. 4, nut 20 near nut side 52 threads to bolt 34);
and a flip arm pivotally connected to the body (Figs. 1-4, flip arm 10 pivotably connected to body 30);
wherein
the abutting portion of the body has two abutting surfaces... (Figs. 1-4, 5B, 6-8, abutting surfaces 64 and 66);
and the two abutting surfaces are in...contact with the T-track to fix the body on the T-track when tightening the bolt and the nut to abut the body against the T-track (Figs. 1-4, 5B, 6-8, abutting surfaces 64 and 66 are in contact with T-track when the bolt 34 and nut 20 are tightened).
Duginske does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the abutting portion of the body has two abutting surfaces disposed symmetrically and being convex arc surfaces;
a pivot point between the flip arm and the body is located [at] a center of the two abutting surfaces;
and the two abutting surfaces are in line contact with the T-track to fix the body on the T-track when tightening the bolt and the nut to abut the body against the T-track.
However, the Duginske/Duxbury/Hoffmann combination makes obvious this claim.
Duxbury discloses wherein the abutting portion of the body has two abutting surfaces disposed symmetrically... (Figs. 3-5, 7A-B, two symmetrical, inclined abutting surfaces 106 on body 74),
a pivot point between the flip arm and the body is located [at] a center of the two abutting surfaces (Figs. 3-5, 7A-B, pivot point 144 is located at a center of the two abutting surfaces 106);
and the two abutting surfaces are in...contact with the T-track to fix the body on the T-track when tightening the bolt and the nut to abut the body against the T-track (Figs. 3-5, 7A-B, two abutting surfaces 106 provide contact with the T-track 58 in the form of a line along the T-track 58 to fix body 74 against the T-track 58 when the bolt and nut are tightened).
Hoffmann discloses wherein the abutting portion of the body has two abutting surfaces disposed symmetrically and being convex arc surfaces (Figs. 1-4, two abutting surfaces (contacting element 611P) are symmetrical about the center of element 201R and are convex arc surfaces).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Duxbury and Hoffmann with Duginske by modifying the two abutment surfaces 64/66 of Duginske to be two symmetrical convex arc surfaces as taught by Hoffmann (symmetrical surfaces are also taught by Duxbury), and moving the pivot hole to the center as taught by Duxbury. With respect to Duxbury, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because with this modification, the symmetrical abutment surfaces would self-center and self-align the body to a larger variety of T-track widths (Duxbury 13:48-52, “The chamfered edges 106, 196 align to ensure proper vertical alignment in a direction parallel to coordinate line 24 and ensure that the fence stop 52 is aligned in both the first direction and the second direction.”); and the position of the pivot point is a matter of design choice and geometric considerations, depending on how the designer would like the flip arm to pivot relative to the body. With respect to Hoffmann, which further modifies the Duginske/Duxbury combination to use two symmetrical convex arc abutment surfaces, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this is a matter of design choice, as Duginske discloses the use of a first inclined surface with a second stepped surface (Figs. 6-8, surfaces 64/66) and Duxbury discloses the use of two symmetrical inclined surfaces (Figs. 3-5, 7A-B, surfaces 106). This further modification also allows for the ability for self-centering and self-aligning (and would accomplish the recited “in line contact” limitation) and would allow the flip stop to be used with a larger variety of T-track widths (note that screw head f’ of Hoffmann (Figs. 3-4) is analogous to bolt 34 and is used as a sliding guide along slot a6). Applicant has not disclosed that having the pivot point centered as recited or the symmetrical convex arc surfaces as recited provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs (see Spec. Figs. 8-9, p. 7, lines 9-19, showing alternative abutment surface contours). Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of this arrangement as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 4, the Duginske/Duxbury/Hoffmann combination makes obvious the flip stop of claim 1 as applied above. Duginske further discloses:
wherein the body has a combining hole (Figs. 1-4, 5B, 6-8, hole 36);
the flip arm has a pivot hole (Figs. 1-4, hole 24);
and the flip stop has a pivot shaft located through the pivot hole and combined with the combining hole of the body to allow the flip arm to rotate about the pivot shaft and be pivotally connected to the body (Figs 1-4, bolt 26 (“pivot shaft”) is capable of performing the recited function).
Regarding claim 7, the Duginske/Duxbury/Hoffmann combination makes obvious the flip stop of claim 4 as applied above.
Duginske further discloses:
wherein the flip stop has a washer; the pivot shaft is located through the pivot hole of the flip arm and a through hole of the washer and combined with the combining hole of the body (Figs. 1-4, washers 32, bolt 26 (“pivot shaft”) passes through hole of washer 32, hole 24, and hole 36 to attach flip arm 10 to body 30).
Duxbury further discloses:
wherein the flip stop has a washer (Figs. 3-5, washer 142); the pivot shaft is located through the pivot hole of the flip arm and a through hole of the washer and combined with the combining hole of the body; and two opposite sides of the washer respectively abut the body and the flip arm (Figs. 3-5, “pivot shaft” 140/150/164 passes through hole 134 of flip arm 108, hole of washer 142, and combines with hole 102 of body 74, where the two opposite sides of washer 142 respectively abut body 74 and flip arm 108).
The obviousness rationale for claim 7 is the same as for claim 4, with the addition that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further combine the teachings of Duxbury with the Duginske/Duxbury/Hoffmann combination by adding a washer between the flip arm and body because this would reduce the amount of friction (due to smaller contact area) allowing for easier and smoother pivoting of the flip arm relative to the body and would reduce wear on the surfaces of the body and flip arm (compared to not using a washer). Examiner notes that Duginske discloses the use of washers (Fig. 4, washers 32), except there is no explicit disclosure of a washer located between the flip arm and the body.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments and remarks have been considered. Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8-9 have been canceled. Claims 1, 4, and 7 are pending. Claims 1, 4, and 7 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments regarding amended claim 1 are moot in view of the new rejection above due to the amended limitations. With respect to Applicant’s arguments concerning non-obviousness (Reply at 8-12), these arguments for the alleged benefits of the claimed invention are not persuasive as these are well-known benefits of devices having similar structural elements and geometry. Applicant has not set forth any actual evidence of secondary considerations (e.g., commercial success, long felt need, failure of others, skepticism of others, copying), which would be required for further consideration. MPEP § 2145; see MPEP §§ 716.01-06. It should be noted that attorney argument cannot take the place of actual evidence. MPEP §§ 716.01(c)(I)-(II).
Examiner emphasizes that Applicant’s own disclosure (see Spec. Figs. 8-9, p. 7, lines 9-19, two other embodiments with alternative abutment surface contours) shows that having the symmetrical convex arc surfaces as recited is not critical to the invention, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723