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 .
Response to Amendments and Status of Claims
Applicants’ amendments to the claims, filed June 19, 2026, are acknowledged. Claims 1, 7 and 9 are amended, Claims 12-20 are cancelled and Claims 21-24 are newly added. No new matter has been added.
Timely election without traverse of Invention I, Claims 1-11, directed to a method of manufacturing a part, in the reply filed on February 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-11 and 21-24 are pending and currently considered in this office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites wherein “the clamp pad has the green-body-engaging surface engaging the external surface of the green body, and a fixture-engaging surface engaging the fixture member”. Please reword to, for example, wherein “the green-body-engaging surface of the clamp pad engages the external surface of the green body, and a fixture-engaging surface of the clamp pad engages the fixture member”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 8 and 10 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.
Claim 8 recites limitations which are already required by Claim 7 from which Claim 8 depends from.
Claim 10 recites limitations which are already required by Claim 1 from which Claim 10 ultimately depends from.
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.
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.
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.
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 CFR 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.
Claims 1-11, 21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata (US 6350407 A) in view of Yu (CN 208428055 U, English Machine Translation provided), Chen (CN 217668762 U, English Machine Translation provided) and Verbrugge (previously cited, US 20060157908 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 and Claim 10, Sakata discloses a method of manufacturing a part (Abstract), comprising:
metal injection molding a binder and a metallic powder to form a green body (Col. 2, lines 44-48; Col. 7, lines 51-54);
machining the green body (Fig. 3; Col. 11, lines 53-56), and
debinding and sintering the machined green part (Fig. 3).
Sakata is silent towards the machining configuration.
Yu teaches a machining set-up to remove burrs from a green powder metallurgy compact, wherein a green body is clamped to engage with an anti-slip rubber pad which is further engaged with a fixing member of a retaining fixture (Fig. 1, anti-slip rubber pad 15, fixing member (clamp plate) 14, retaining fixture 10).
Yu teaches wherein this set-up enables the clamping of powder metallurgy products, thereby preventing product damage caused by shifting during the deburring process, reduces rigid contact with the ground, and features a simple structure which is easy to use, thereby reducing the labor intensity for operators (para. [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the machining set-up and deburring tool taught by Yu for the invention disclosed by Sakata, in order to polish the green compact as desired by Sakata, and in order to prevent product damage caused by shifting during the deburring process, and to comprise an easy to use machining tool which reduces rigid contact with the ground and features a simple structure (see teaching above).
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the clamp pad of Yu is discrete from the green body, as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a clamp pad composed of rubber, a soft material, would have a smaller surface hardness than the injection molded green body composed of metal particles, a hard material, as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would also appreciate that the coefficient of friction of the rubber clamp pad surface of Yu would be greater than the surface of the green compact, as claimed, in order for the rubber clamp pad to be anti-slip as taught by Yu (para. [0005]; see Fig. 1, anti-slip rubber pad 15).
Further, the clamp pad material and the green compact material of Sakata and Yu are the same as the instant invention (Sakata, metal alloy injection molded green body, Abstract; Yu, rubber clamp pad, para. [0005]; instant specification, para. [0024], rubber-based material and para. [0018], powder metal alloys), and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the rubber clamp pad would have a hardness which is smaller than the green compact surface as claimed, because the component materials of the clamp pad and the green body are the same.
When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Yu selects the rubber clamp pad to be anti-slip for the external surface of a powder metallurgy green body, which reads on selecting a clamp pad from a set of clamp pads having different configurations, wherein the clamp pad is selected based on a surface profile of the external surface of the green body, as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the broadest most reasonable interpretation of surface profile includes surface topography, such as the specific topography associated with a powder metallurgy green body, and that a configuration of the clamp pad includes material choice. Additionally, Yu teaches wherein the clamp pad is designed (and therefore selected) for different sizes of powder metallurgy products (para. [0009]). Green body size further reads on a particular green body surface profile.
Further, Chen teaches rubber pads with different geometries which may be interchangeably used and selected in order to accommodate parts with different shapes and specifications, thereby improving the friction force with the surface of the clamped part (para. [0012]; Fig. 3, see different pad shapes - rectangular pad 15 and arcuate pad 17).
Verbrugge additionally teaches wherein a clamping pad comprises a matching contour to the geometry of the workpiece surface profile in order to distribute reaction forces from clamping over a larger area, thereby minimizing the possibility of damaging the surface of the workpiece (para. [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the clamp pad shape (configuration) from a clamp pad set and based on the surface profile (size and shape) of the part to be clamped, as taught by Chen, and further to have selected a clamp pad geometry which matches the contour of the workpiece surface profile, as taught by Verbrugge, for the invention disclosed by Sakata and Yu, in order to increase the frictional force between the clamp pad and components of different sizes and specifications, and in order to distribute reaction forces from clamping over a larger area, thereby minimizing workpiece damage (see teachings above, respectively).
The invention of Sakata, Yu, Chen and Verbrugge reads on the claimed feature wherein (see Claim 1 and also Claim 10) during supporting of the green body through the engagement of the clamp pad, the clamp pad spreads a load applied by the fixture member over the green-body-engaging surface (see teaching by Verbrugge above) so as to limit slipping of the green body relative to the retaining fixture (see teaching by Yu and Chen above).
Regarding Claim 2, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the machining apparatus of Yu would not be placed in the furnace for debinding and sintering, as the debinding and sintering atmospheric conditions and temperatures would both destroy the clamp pad and/or the machining apparatus and require a large capacity to accommodate the machining set-up. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the machined green body would be removed from the machining apparatus, and therefore disengaged with the clamp pads, prior to debinding and sintering, as claimed.
Regarding Claim 3, Yu discloses wherein the clamp pad is anti-slip (para. [0005]; see Fig. 1, anti-slip rubber pad 15), and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the clamp pad therefore maintains the green body in a fixed position (no slipping/movement) during the machining, as claimed.
Regarding Claim 4, Yu does not disclose rotating the green body with the clamp pad and the fixture member.
Chen teaches rotating the clamped part via rotation of the retaining fixture, clamping plates and clamp pads, in order to adjust the orientation of the clamped part and to facilitate comprehensive grinding, thereby allowing for rapid orientation adjustment of the clamped part and enhancement of the grinding results (Abstract; para. [0011]; para. [0020]; Fig. 3, rotational motor 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included rotating the green body with the clamp pad and the fixture member, as taught by Chen, for the invention disclosed by Sakata, Yu, Chen and Verbrugge, in order to adjust the orientation of the clamped part and to facilitate comprehensive grinding, thereby allowing for rapid orientation adjustment of the clamped part and enhancement of the grinding results (see teaching above).
Regarding Claim 5, Yu discloses wherein the clamp pad is fitted to the clamping plate (para. [0005]), but is silent towards complementary locating features which engage with each other, the first locating feature being provided on the clamp pad and the second locating feature being provided on the fixture member.
Chen teaches complementary locating locking features which fit the clamping pad to the clamping plate by engaging a locking block fixed to the clamp pad with a matching receiving end within the clamping plate, thereby allowing the clamping pad to be changed in order to improve fit and clamping effectiveness (para. [0022]; Fig. 3, locking block 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the locking block engagement feature taught by Chen, and therefore complementary locating features which engage with each other, the first locating feature being provided on the clamp pad and the second locating feature being provided on the fixture member as claimed, for the invention disclosed by Sakata, Yu, Chen and Verbrugge, in order to effectively change out the clamp pad to improve fit and clamping effectiveness (see teachings above).
Regarding Claim 6, Yu discloses wherein the clamp pad is fitted to the clamping plate (fixture member) (para. [0005]), but is silent towards fitting using a fastener.
Chen teaches fitting the clamping pad to the clamping plate by engaging a locking block fixed to the clamp pad which fits to a receiving end of the clamping plate, thereby allowing the clamping pad to be changed in order to improve fit and clamping effectiveness (para. [0022]; Fig. 3, locking block 16). The locking block reads on the broadest most reasonable interpretation of fastener (a device that joins together separate parts or closes an opening – Merriam-Webster dictionary definition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the locking block engagement feature taught by Chen, and therefore complementary locating features which engage with each other, the first locating feature being provided on the clamp pad and the second locating feature being provided on the fixture member as claimed, for the invention disclosed by Sakata, Yu, Chen and Verbrugge, in order to effectively change out the clamp pad to improve fit and clamping effectiveness (see teachings above).
Regarding Claim 7 and Claim 8, Yu discloses wherein the clamp pad is fitted to the clamping plate (fixture member) (para. [0005]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would therefore appreciate that the clamp pad is selected based on a configuration of the fixture member (clamping plate) and the machine tool in order to fit properly to the clamping plate and to be usable for clamping during use of the machine tool.
Regarding Claim 9, Yu discloses wherein the clamp pad is fitted to the clamping plate (fixture member) (para. [0005]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the clamp pad therefore has a fixture-engaging surface engaging the fixture member, as claimed. Yu further reads on the feature wherein the coefficient of friction of the rubber anti-slip pad is greater than the coefficient of friction of the surface of the green body which engages the clamp pad (see explanation in Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 11, Yu discloses wherein the clamping pad is made of rubber (para. [0005]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that rubber is a resilient and conformable material, and that a rubber clamp pad would conform to the surface of the green body as claimed. Further, the clamp pad material is the same as instant invention (see above and para. [0024] of instant specification), and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the clamp pad material to behave in the claimed manner and conform to the surface of the green body because material is the same as the instant invention.
When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 21, Yu discloses forming the clamp pad of a rubber-based material (para. [0005]; Fig. 1, rubber pad 15; see also Chen, para. [0018] and Fig. 3, rubber pads 15 and 17).
Regarding Claim 23, Yu and Chen disclose wherein the retaining fixture is a chuck jaw having a plurality of fixture members, the method further comprising providing the clamp pad on each of the fixture members of the chuck jaw (Fig. 1, retaining member 10 reads on chuck comprising a plurality of fixture members (clamping plates 14 on either side of the chuck) wherein each fixture member (clamping plate) comprises a clamp pad 15; see also Fig. 3 of Chen).
Regarding Claim 24, Yu and Chen disclose wherein the clamp pad comprises a prismatic shape (see Fig. 1 of Yu, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the clamp pads of Yu to comprise the same cross-section throughout and therefore be a prismatic shape; further, see Fig. 4 of Chen).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata (US 6350407 A) in view of Yu (CN 208428055 U, English Machine Translation provided), Chen (CN 217668762 U, English Machine Translation provided) and Verbrugge (previously cited, US 20060157908 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Tian (CN 209774352 U, English Machine Translation provided).
Regarding Claim 22, Yu and Chen are silent towards the thickness of the rubber pad.
Tian teaches a clamping pad of 1-3mm in order to prevent damage to the workpiece (para. [0007]; para. [0026]; para. [0015], see point 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised a 1-3mm thick rubber pad, which reads on the claimed range of 0.76-9.53mm, as taught by Tian, for the invention disclosed by Yu and Chen, in order to prevent damage to the workpiece (see teaching above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 19, 2026, with respect to Claims 1-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Campomanes in view of Tong, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims further limiting the clamping pad and the incorporation of the features from Claims 7, 9 and 10. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sakata in view of Yu, Chen and Verbrugge, as detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hu (previously cited, CN 115502398 A, English Machine Translation provided): teaches a rubber clamp pad for holding a body for cutting prior to sintering, wherein the rubber clamp pads prevent movement during cutting acting as a buffer and in order to increase friction, further preventing displacement while avoiding breakage due to excessive clamping force (para. [0027]; para. [0053]).
Widiantara (previously cited, “Characterization of Green Part of Steel from Metal Injection Molding: An Analysis Using Moldflow”): teaches wherein the green body of a MIM part comprising steel powder has a hardness of about 650 HV (Abstract; Fig. 8), which would be above the hardness of rubber and shape memory polymers.
Campomanes (previously cited, US 20160016329 A1): teaches a method of manufacturing a part by powder injection molding a metal powder with a binder using a mold which then serves as a retaining member to be fitted into a machining apparatus, and machining the green body prior followed by disengagement and debinding and sintering of the machined green body (Abstract; para. [0018]; Fig. 2; para. [0024]-[0029]; Fig. 3a, green-body engaging surface of fixture member (support member) 26 of retaining fixture 54 (see also Fig. 6A, fixture member 126 of retaining fixture 154) engages external surface of green body 50/50a).
Tong (previously cited, CN 110560693 A, English Machine translation provided): teaches wherein a clamping fixture member is further fixed with a rubber pad in order to prevent a workpiece from being damaged (para. [0030]).
Verbrugge (previously cited and applied above, US 20060157908 A1, further teachings): teaches a reconfigurable clamp pad, wherein the clamp pad is a shape memory material such as a shape memory polymer and therefore configured to selectively conform to a surface contour of a workpiece in order to provide adequate support and clamping means for a variety of workpiece configurations (Abstract; para. [0012]; para. [0010]; para. [0006], applicable to production machining operations; para. [0025]; para. [0035], configured as dense solid, perforated or porous, hollow, granular, or the like; para. [0036]-[0037]; para. [0046]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a shape memory polymer (see para. [0056] examples) would have a smaller surface hardness than the green body comprising the mixture of nickel superalloy and binder, and therefore the claimed limitation wherein the second surface hardness of the clamp pad is smaller than the first surface hardness of the green body has been met.
Boesel (previously cited, WO 9945293 A1): teaches wherein a clamp pad of resilient material, such as polyurethane, which prevents damage to the surface of the clamped object, is fastened to a fixture block (slide block) (Pg. 10, lines 8-12). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that fastening requires fasteners. For example, Boesel also teaches fastening with fasteners (Pg. 10, line 14, fasteners 42 for fastening cover plate 36).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)-272-3458. 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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights