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 .
Correction Letter Re Last Office Action
A corrected copy of the last Office action is enclosed. The corrections are with respect to the rejection header for the rejection of claim 5. See MPEP 707.05(g).
The shortened statutory period for reply of 3 MONTHS set in said Office action is restarted to begin with the mailing date of this letter. Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12 are currently amended.
The drawings dated 03/26/2026 are entered in view of the notice dated 04/21/2026, which only requires the portion of the amendment that is non-compliant to be resubmitted. The drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
In claims 1, 8, and 9 consider -- formed in [[the]] a shape of an elongated S--.
In claim 1, consider -- a pair of secondary edges that extend along [[the]] an intersection of the first filing slot and the elongated body -- -- to [[the]] respective secondary edges of the first filing slot--.
In claim 4, consider -- a second pair of secondary edges that extend along [[the]] an intersection of the second filing slot and the elongated body-- and -- a second crown portion having first and second sides and that is positioned along the second longitudinal axis and at [[the]] a deepest portion of the second filing slot--.
In claim 8, consider -- A method for using a file to file a strip of metal, comprising [[the]] steps of:--; -- the central[[,]] crown portion touches--
In claim 11, consider -- a second slotted filing region of predetermined depth formed in the elongated body--; -- a second crown portion at its deepest part and third and fourth radiused side regions extending outwardly from the second crown portion--
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(s) 1-4, 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tusko (US 20230162710 A1) in view of Ertl (US 20250058423 A1; a machine translation of the foreign priority document DE 10 2021 215 021.7, dated 12/23/2021 is attached which supports the disclosure and claims of the reference) and as evidenced by Narex (YouTube video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeDkvwqY2Po&t=23s) and Wikipedia article titled "Rasp", previous revision dated 6 March 2020 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rasp&oldid=944280234)
With respect to claim 1, Tusko discloses: A file for use in filing a strip of metal (intended use; however [0004] discloses that Frets are metal strips), comprising: an elongated body (405 and 410 together formed a continuous elongated body) having a first arm (405, fig. 4; [0074]) and a second arm (410, fig. 4; [0074]) that extend relative to each other in spaced, parallel relation (arms extend outwardly parallel to each other), wherein the first arm further comprises a first filing edge that extends along a first longitudinal axis (405 and 410 together formed a continuous elongated body, fig. 4; with a first edge at top left side 420, fig. 4, [0074]; it is noted that there are 4 filing edges); and
a first filing slot formed in an outside edge of the first arm (420, fig. 4 is disclosed to be a groove in [0074]) and comprising a pair of secondary edges that extend along the intersection of the first filing slot and the elongated body (as in [0074], aspects from figs 2 and 3 can be incorporated into the embodiment of fig. 4; and fig. 3a describes how a slot can be formed with two side surfaces 305 [with edges that extend along intersection of slot and body], as described in [0064]),
wherein the first and second side portions contain an abrasive material adapted for filing the strip of metal (filing surface 250 has an abrasive surface as in fig. 2c, [0061]; fig. 3a describes the profiles of filing surface 250, including the first/second side portions 305 as in [0064])
however, does not explicitly disclose that the elongated body is formed in the shape of an elongated S; a crown portion having first and second sides and that is positioned along the first longitudinal axis and at a deepest portion of the first filing slot, and first and second side portions that extend from the first and second sides of the crown portion, respectively, to the respective secondary edges of the first filing slot and the crown portion does not include abrasive material thereon. Tusko, however, discloses that it is important not to over file the crown of a fret ([0008] discloses how it is important to preserve the level plane of the top of the fret; [0064] provides that the top of the fret should not be touched by the tool, which is achieved through a point or crease 310, fig. 3a)
Ertl, in the same field of endeavor, related to files, teaches of providing a fret filing tool with crown portion having first and second sides and that is positioned along the longitudinal axis and at a deepest portion of the first filing slot (crown portion 9, figs. 1 and 2; has two sides around centerline E; and is at the deepest portion of filing slot as shown in fig. 1, and when applied to Tusko would be positioned along the first longitudinal axis of the tool, given that the filing slot extends long that axis), and first and second side portions that extend from the first and second sides of the crown portion (portions of 8, fig. 1 on both sides, respectively, around the center of the crown at 9, fig. 1; [0088], it is noted that the crown 9 has no abrading material, while the surfaces 8 are provided with such as in [0088]) to the respective secondary edges of the first filing slot (first and second sides 8 extend to edge of filing slot; fig. 1; [0086,0088]); and the crown portion does not include abrasive material thereon ([0088]). Ertl teaches that this arrangement with a protruding crown [depth stop at 9] prevents unwanted abrading of the fret ([0007-0009]), and simplifies filing of the fret ([0017])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the slot of Tusko, to provide for a non-abrasive crown region, in place of a point or crease, for the same purpose of preventing the top of the fret from being filed. This arrangement would also provide the advantage of simplifying filling of the fret ([0017]).
As for the limitation that that the elongated body is formed in the shape of an elongated S, MPEP 2144.04 provides that changes in shape would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (referencing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.)).
In the instant application, there is no evidence that the particular shape of the tool (in the form of an enlarged S) is significant, given that the specification is not explicit with respect to the elongated S shape of the tool, and that with respect to other mentions of shapes (i.e. the crown portion, the shape is not critical, [0035]).
PNG
media_image1.png
850
1347
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Narex at 0:23, dated Nov. 14, 2018 (the .docx file may be downloaded from Patent Center or https://data.uspto.gov/patent-file-wrapper/search for a color image of the above reference which may be enlarged).
Narex demonstrates that, with respect to abrasive filing tools (rasps, see screen capture above), filing tools may be found in various different shapes, including shapes analogous to that of Tusko (see first, third and seventh tools from top), and of s-shaped tools (see fifth, sixth, and eighth tool from top). Narex therefore demonstrates that the particular shape of the tool would have been a matter of choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The Wikipedia article on “Rasp” further demonstrates that rasps are a type of file a hand tool (page 1) and that rasps can come in a variety of shapes (page 1; “Use” section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tusko, and have made Tusko a shape of an elongated S, as MPEP 2144.04 provides that changes in shape would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and because Narex and the Wikipedia article on “Rasp” demonstrates that a selection of a shape for the hand tool would have been a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art, and given the lack of evidence that the claimed, particular S shape is of significance. In view of the prior art, the modification would have been predictable.
With respect to claim 2, Tusko, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the first filing slot is concave in shape (Tusko, filing surface 250 has a concave shape as in fig. 2c, [0061]; fig. 3a describes the profiles of filing surface 250, including the first/second side portions 305 as in [0064]; Ertl, see shape of slot/sides 8 in fig. 1, [0086]).
With respect to claim 3, Tusko, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the first filing slot extends at a first oblique angle outwardly from the first longitudinal axis and terminates in a first rounded nose (Tusko, slot 220 in fig. 2C terminates in rounded nose; the slot, by being of a concave shape as shown in fig. 2c, extends at a first oblique angle relative to the axis of the slot; as in [0074], aspects from figs 2 and 3 can be incorporated into the embodiment of fig. 4).
With respect to claim 4, Tusko, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the elongated body further comprises: a second filing edge that extends along a second longitudinal axis (Tusko, lower right corner; 415, fig. 4; [0074]; it is noted that there are 4 filing edges), and a second filing slot formed in an outside edge of the second arm (Tusko, 420, fig. 4 is disclosed to be a groove in [0074], see lower right corner) and comprising a second pair of secondary edges that extend along the intersection of the second filing slot and the elongated body the groove (as in Tusko, [0074], aspects from figs 2 and 3 can be incorporated into the embodiment of fig. 4; and fig. 3a describes how a slot can be formed with two side surfaces 305 [with edges that extend along intersection of slot and body], as described in [0064]), however does not explicitly teach a second crown portion having first and second sides and that is positioned along the second longitudinal axis and at the deepest portion of the second filing slot and third and fourth side portions that extend from the first and second sides of the second crown portion, respectively, to the second pair of secondary edges of the second filing slot, and wherein the third and fourth side portions are coated with abrasive material adapted for filing the strip of metal and the second crown portion does not include abrasive material thereon. As explained in the 103 rejection of claim 1 above, these elements of a crown portion having first and second sides and that is positioned along the second longitudinal axis and at the deepest portion of the second filing slot, and wherein the first and second side portions [or third and fourth side portions, from the first and second sides of the second crown portion, respectively, to the second pair of secondary edges of the second filing slot, when applied to a second filing slot] are coated with abrasive material adapted for filing the strip of metal and the crown portion does not include abrasive material thereon, found with respect to the first filing slot in the first filing edge are obvious over Tusko in view of Ertl. For the same reasons as in the 103 rejection of claim 1 above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Ertl with a non-abrasive crown portion and abrasive third and fourth side portions to the second filing slot of Tusko. This would have resulted in the claimed limitations.
With respect to claim 6, Tusko, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 4 above, and further teaches wherein the first filing slot and second filing slot are of predetermined widths that are different from one another (Tusko; [0074], each of the edges can have different groove sizes to accommodate different fret sizes; [0069-0072] describe the groove sizes/widths [or radiuses, which ultimately determines the width of the groove] and calculation thereof).
With respect to claim 7, Tusko, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 4 above, and further teaches wherein the second filing slot extends at a second oblique angle from the second longitudinal axis and terminates in a second rounded nose (Tusko, slot 220 in fig. 2C terminates in rounded nose; the slot, by being of a concave shape as shown in fig. 2c, extends at a first oblique angle relative to the axis of the slot; as in [0074], aspects from figs 2 and 3 can be incorporated into the embodiment of fig. 4).
With respect to claim 8, Tusko discloses: A method for using a file to file a strip of metal (the apparatus is used to file frets made of metal, [0002,0004]) , comprising the steps of: providing a file comprising an elongated body (405 and 410 together formed a continuous elongated body) having a first arm (405, fig. 4; [0074]) and a second arm (410, fig. 4; [0074]) that extend relative to each other in spaced, parallel relation (arms extend outwardly parallel to each other), and having a filing slot that includes two sides of filing material coating formed thereon (file with slot 220, fig. 2c, with abrasive material formed on surface 250; [0061], the surface 250 is segmented by a crease 310, as in [0064], and therefore has two sides or halves), sliding the file back and forth across the strip of metal (the apparatus is used to file frets made of metal, [0002,0004]; the file is operated drawing the tool across frets [strip of metal] in [0005]) however does not explicitly disclose a central, crown portion that does not have an abrasive material thereon, and stopping the sliding movement once the central, crown portion touches the strip of metal. Tusko, however, discloses that that the top part of the fret should only be touch at the last stroke, otherwise not touching the top part, and at most leaving the finest silver to be filed ([0053]; therefore, the central top portion 310, fig. 3a, analogous to a crown (but not uncoated, as recited in the claim) does not touch the top part of the fret; [0072]).
Ertl, in the same field of endeavor, related to files, teaches of providing a fret filing tool with a crown portion (crown portion 9, figs. 1 and 2; has two sides around centerline E; and is at the deepest portion of filing slot as shown in fig. 1; Etrl refers to this as a depth stop which is further described in [0007-0008], which provides the understanding that once the depth [the fret touching the stop] has been reached, abrading is stopped) with side portions (side portions of 8, fig. 1); where the crown has no abrading material, while the side portions are provided with abrading material ([0088]). Etrl provides that Ertl teaches that this arrangement with a protruding crown [depth stop at 9] prevents unwanted abrading of the fret ([0007-0009]), and simplifies filing of the fret ([0017])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the slot of Tusko, to provide for a non-abrasive crown region, in place of the point or crease, for the same purpose of preventing the top of the fret from being filed, and to stop abrading when the fret/metal strip reaches the stop. This arrangement would also provide the advantage of simplifying filling of the fret (Ertl, [0017]).
As for the limitation that that the elongated body is formed in the shape of an elongated S, MPEP 2144.04 provides that changes in shape would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (referencing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.)).
In the instant application, there is no evidence that the particular shape of the tool (in the form of an enlarged S) is significant, given that the specification is not explicit with respect to the elongated S shape of the tool, and that with respect to other mentions of shapes (i.e. the crown portion, the shape is not critical, [0035]).
PNG
media_image1.png
850
1347
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Narex at 0:23, dated Nov. 14, 2018 (the .docx file may be downloaded from Patent Center or https://data.uspto.gov/patent-file-wrapper/search for a color image of the above reference which may be enlarged).
Narex demonstrates that, with respect to abrasive filing tools (rasps, see screen capture above), filing tools may be found in various different shapes, including shapes analogous to that of Tusko (see first, third and seventh tools from top), and of s-shaped tools (see fifth, sixth, and eighth tool from top). Narex therefore demonstrates that the particular shape of the tool would have been a matter of choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The Wikipedia article on “Rasp” further demonstrates that rasps are a type of file a hand tool (page 1) and that rasps can come in a variety of shapes (page 1; “Use” section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tusko, and have made Tusko a shape of an elongated S, as MPEP 2144.04 provides that changes in shape would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and because Narex and the Wikipedia article on “Rasp” demonstrates that a selection of a shape for the hand tool would have been a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art, and given the lack of evidence that the claimed, particular S shape is of significance. In view of the prior art, the modification would have been predictable.
With respect to claim 9, Tusko discloses: A file for filing a strip of metal (intended use; however [0004] discloses that Frets are metal strips), comprising: : an elongated body (405 and 410 together formed a continuous elongated body) having a first arm (405, fig. 4; [0074]) and a second arm (410, fig. 4; [0074]) that extend relative to each other in spaced, parallel relation (arms extend outwardly parallel to each other, body 405 and 410 together formed a continuous body, fig. 4; [0074]) wherein the first arm further comprises a first slotted filing region of predetermined depth formed therein (420, fig. 4 is disclosed to be a groove in [0074]; it is noted that there are 4 filing edges, for the purposes of examination the first slotted region is the top left one; the depth is predetermined as part of the physical structure of the tool) and having a first crown portion at its deepest part (310, fig. 3a; [0064], as in [0074], aspects from figs 2 and 3 can be incorporated into the embodiment of fig. 4) and first and second radiused side regions extending outwardly from the first crown portion (fig. 3a describes how a slot can be formed with two side surfaces 305 [extend outwardly/to bottom of figure from crown 310 in fig. 4, as described in [0064]); and abrasive material formed on each of the first and second radiused side regions (filing surface 250 has an abrasive surface as in fig. 2c, [0061]; fig. 3a describes the profiles of filing surface 250, including the first/second side portions 305 as in [0064]) however does not explicitly disclose that the elongated body is formed in the shape of an elongated S non-abrasive material forming the first crown portion, wherein the crown portion does not extend beyond respective edges of the second radiused side region.
Ertl, in the same field of endeavor, related to files, teaches of providing a fret filing tool with a crown portion (crown portion 9, figs. 1 and 2; has two sides around centerline E; and is at the deepest portion of filing slot as shown in fig. 1) with side portions (side portions of 8, fig. 1); where the crown has no abrading material, while the side portions are provided with abrading material ([0088]), wherein the crown portion does not extend respective edges of the second radiused side region (see position of crown portion 9, fig. 1, relative to edges at AF and BF, fig. 1, [ends of radiused regions], the dimensions t of the crown portion are discussed in [0088], and the abrasive begins at CF and DF, fig. 1). Etrl provides that Ertl teaches that this arrangement with a protruding crown [depth stop at 9] prevents unwanted abrading of the fret ([0007-0009]), and simplifies filing of the fret ([0017]). Tusko, however, discloses that it is important not to over file the crown of a fret ([0008] discloses how it is important to preserve the level plane of the top of the fret; [0064] provides that the top of the fret should not be touched by the tool, which is achieved through a point or crease 310, fig. 3a).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the slot of Tusko, to provide for a non-abrasive crown region, in place of the point or crease, for the same purpose of preventing the top of the fret from being filed, and to stop abrading when the fret/metal strip reaches the stop. This arrangement would also provide the advantage of simplifying filling of the fret (Ertl, [0017]).
As for the limitation that that the elongated body is formed in the shape of an elongated S, MPEP 2144.04 provides that changes in shape would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (referencing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.)).
In the instant application, there is no evidence that the particular shape of the tool (in the form of an enlarged S) is significant, given that the specification is not explicit with respect to the elongated S shape of the tool, and that with respect to other mentions of shapes (i.e. the crown portion, the shape is not critical, [0035]).
PNG
media_image1.png
850
1347
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Narex at 0:23, dated Nov. 14, 2018 (the .docx file may be downloaded from Patent Center or https://data.uspto.gov/patent-file-wrapper/search for a color image of the above reference which may be enlarged).
Narex demonstrates that, with respect to abrasive filing tools (rasps, see screen capture above), filing tools may be found in various different shapes, including shapes analogous to that of Tusko (see first, third and seventh tools from top), and of s-shaped tools (see fifth, sixth, and eighth tool from top). Narex therefore demonstrates that the particular shape of the tool would have been a matter of choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The Wikipedia article on “Rasp” further demonstrates that rasps are a type of file a hand tool (page 1) and that rasps can come in a variety of shapes (page 1; “Use” section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tusko, and have made Tusko a shape of an elongated S, as MPEP 2144.04 provides that changes in shape would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and because Narex and the Wikipedia article on “Rasp” demonstrates that a selection of a shape for the hand tool would have been a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art, and given the lack of evidence that the claimed, particular S shape is of significance. In view of the prior art, the modification would have been predictable.
With respect to claim 10, Tusko, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 9 above, and further teaches wherein the first slotted filing region is concave in shape (Tusko, filing surface 250 has a concave shape as in fig. 2c, [0061]; fig. 3a describes the profiles of filing surface 250, including the first/second side portions 305 as in [0064]; Ertl, see shape of slot/sides 8 in fig. 1, [0086]).
With respect to claim 11, Tusko, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 9 above, and further wherein the second arm further comprises a second slotted filing region of predetermined depth formed in the body (Tusko, 420, fig. 4 is disclosed to be a groove in [0074]; it is noted that there are 4 filing edges, for the purposes of examination the second slotted region is the lower right one; the depth is predetermined as part of the physical structure of the tool) and having a second crown portion at its deepest part (Tusko, 310, fig. 3a; [0064], as in [0074], aspects from figs 2 and 3 can be incorporated into the embodiment of fig. 4) and third and fourth radiused side regions extending outwardly from the second crown region (Tusko, fig. 3a describes how a slot can be formed with two side surfaces 305 [extend outwardly/to bottom of figure from crown 310 in fig. 4, as described in [0064]); and abrasive material formed on each of the third and fourth radiused side regions (Tusko, filing surface 250 has an abrasive surface as in fig. 2c, [0061]; fig. 3a describes the profiles of filing surface 250, including the first/second side portions 305 as in [0064]) however does not explicitly disclose non-abrasive material forming the second crown portion. As explained in the 103 rejection of claim 9 above, these elements of non-abrasive material forming the second crown portion are obvious over Tusko in view of Ertl. For the same reasons as in the 103 rejection of claim 9 above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Ertl with a non-abrasive crown portion to the second filing region of Tusko. This would have resulted in the claimed limitations.
With respect to claim 12, Tusko, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 11 above, and further teaches wherein the first and second slotted filing regions are of predetermined widths that are different from one another (Tusko; [0074], each of the edges can have different groove sizes to accommodate different fret sizes; [0069-0072] describe the groove sizes/widths [or radiuses, which ultimately determines the width of the groove] and calculation thereof).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tusko (US 20230162710 A1) in view of Ertl (US 20250058423 A1) and as evidenced by Narex and Wikipedia article titled "Rasp", and further in view of Lin (US 20070178816 A1).
PNG
media_image2.png
353
698
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 4 (Tusko)
With respect to claim 5, Tusko, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 4 above, and further teaches wherein the first longitudinal axis and second longitudinal axis are in spaced parallel relation to one another (ann. fig .4, above, Tusko, comparing the top left and lower right edges where the first and second longitudinal axes are; furthermore, in view of Narex, as applied to claim 4 [and claim 1], the arrangement would have has a S-shape with a parallel first longitudinal axis and second longitudinal axis forming the two filing slots [forming offset but parallel arms]).
Alternativity, Lin, in the same filed of endeavor, as related to abrading tools, teaches of placing two opposite abrading edges (corresponding to longitudinal axes), of a parallel arrangement (see edges at 21 and 30, fig. 1, [0025]). MPEP 2144.04 provides that changes in shape are obvious absent evidence that a particular shape is significant. In this instant application, it was not demonstrated how the particular arrangement/shape of having opposite parallel edges are of significance, with the particular angle of the two axes relative to each other being parallel would not have affected the functionality of the filing edge to file a fret. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tusko such that the first longitudinal axis and second longitudinal axis are in spaced parallel relation to one another, as an insignificant change in shape. Lin demonstrates how this change would have been done with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant takes the position (response pages 7-8), that neither Ertl, Tusko, and Lin provide for the claimed elongated S-shape. While the examiner does not necessarily disagree with the applicant’s assertation that the elongated S shape is found in the previously cited prior art references, the examiner does take a position that MPEP 2144.04 provides that it would have been obvious to have made the change in shape. In the instant application, there is no discussion of how the particular shape is significant (the claimed elongated s-shape could only be understood from the figures, and the specification does not provide for any significance to the shape). Both Narex and the Wikipedia article on “Rasp” support the rejection in view of MPEP 2144.04 (while the examiner acknowledges that later in the Narex video, the tool is described as having curved/straight shapes to fit into complex, tight, or challenging curved geometry, the reference does not impute significance to any of the particular shapes but simply describes general reasoning for having different geometry). For those reasons above, the examiner does not find that the claimed arrangement is non-obvious over the cited art in view of the provided evidence.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights