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
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-12 and 18-20 in the reply filed on 6/3/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the following ground(s):
Regarding Applicant’s argument B.1., the Examiner respectfully submits that electroetching may be accomplished by the tool since the tool with workpieces may be connected as an anode and lowered into an electroetching bath which would achieve electroetching. See Remarks pp. 7-9.
Regarding Applicant’s argument B.2. that the position is conclusory, the Examiner respectfully submits that searching different classes is a serious burden. See Remarks pp. 9-10.
Regarding Applicant’s argument B.2. about duplicative, the Examiner respectfully submits the fact that the writeup has a redundancy does not make the original analysis any less valid. See Remarks p. 10.
Regarding Applicant’s argument B.2. that MPEP 809.02(a) is directed at species, the Examiner respectfully submits that MPEP 808.03(II) still provides the basis for the restriction of the groups. See Remarks p. 10.
Regarding Applicant’s argument B.3. citing App. No. 14/475,445, the Examiner respectfully submits that decision was made in a different technology center and is not precedential. But the Examiner met his burden by showing different classes since searching different classes is a serious burden as established by MPEP 803(II): “a serious search burden on the examiner may be prima facie shown by appropriate explanation of separate classification.”
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al., CN 105081811 A. A machine translation was used for Lin et al. [hereinafter Lin].
The body of the claim is generally written with parentheses following the limitations indicating the prior art’s teachings and/or examiner notes.
1. Lin teaches:
A method for securing a component for a treatment process (clamping a workpiece for machining; Lin title, abstract, [0002], [0021]-[0022], [0049], figs. 4-5), the method comprising:
obtaining a tool for retaining the component during the treatment process (numeric control machining machine; Lin title, abstract, [0002], figs. 4-5), the tool including a cantilever[ ] (paw 110 for clamping is a cantilever since one end is secure while the other is not; Lin [0046] & [0049], figs. 4-5);
associating the tool with a support bar (any bar of the frame 1; alternatively part of the arm between forearm 115 and connecting portion 116; Lin [0038], [0046], [0049], claim 1, figs. 1, 4-5); and
securing the component to the tool such that the cantilever[ ] is in contact with the component (paw clamps the workpiece; Lin [0021]-[0022], [0046], [0049], figs. 4-5.)
Lin is silent that the cantilever is a plate.
Changes in shape are obvious. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a plate would have been a suitable configuration for the paw 110 and would have found it obvious to have made the change in shape to a plate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Lin et al., CN 105081811 A [hereinafter Lin] is the closest prior art of record. Lin teaches:
A method for securing a component for a treatment process (clamping a workpiece for machining; Lin title, abstract, [0002], [0021]-[0022], [0049], figs. 4-5), the method comprising:
obtaining a tool for retaining the component during the treatment process (numeric control machining machine; Lin title, abstract, [0002], figs. 4-5), the tool including a cantilever[ ] (paw 110 for clamping is a cantilever since one end is secure while the other is not; Lin [0046] & [0049], figs. 4-5);
associating the tool with a support bar (any bar of the frame 1; alternatively part of the arm between forearm 115 and connecting portion 116; Lin [0038], [0046], [0049], claim 1, figs. 1, 4-5); and
securing the component to the tool such that the cantilever[ ] is in contact with the component (paw clamps the workpiece; Lin [0021]-[0022], [0046], [0049], figs. 4-5.)
Lin is silent that the cantilever is a plate.
Changes in shape are obvious. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a plate would have been a suitable configuration for the paw 110 and would have found it obvious to have made the change in shape to a plate.
However, Lin and the prior art of record do not teach:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the tool includes a bracket and an adapter connectable by a shaft.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising obtaining a cover configured to slide over the tool.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising rotating a rotatable member to cause the cantilevered plate to contact the component.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising lowering the support bar and the component secured to the tool in an aqueous solution to coat the component using an electrically driven aqueous process.
It is further noted that Yoo, KR 200353432 Y1, does not teach a cantilever since a cantilever requires an end to be secure, not the middle as depicted in Yoo. See Yoo fig. 1. Also, Bormke et al., U.S. 4,288,313 [hereinafter Bormke] also does not teach a cantilever since Bormke clamps the workpiece sheet 80 at an end which cannot secure a component itself. See Bormke figs. 2 & 7-9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hosung Chung whose telephone number is (571) 270-7578. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday, 9 AM - 6 PM CT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached on (571) 272-8902. 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.
/HOSUNG CHUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights