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 Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s 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Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, directed to an assembly, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-20 are pending, and Claims 1-11 are currently considered in this office action.
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 1-5, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campomanes (US 20160016329 A1) in view of Tong (CN 110560693 A, English Machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 1, Campomanes discloses a method of manufacturing a part (Abstract), comprising:
receiving a green body made of powder injection molding material, the powder injection molding material including a binder and a metallic powder material mixed with the binder, the green body having a first surface hardness (para. [0018], hardness associated with metal alloy or nickel superalloy and binder mixture);
engaging the green body to a fixture member of a retaining fixture of a machine tool (Abstract; para. [0024]; Fig. 3a, fixture member (support member) 26 of retaining fixture 54 and Fig. 6A, fixture member 126 of retaining fixture 154),
while supporting the green body through the engagement of the retaining fixture, machining the green body using the machine tool to obtain a machined green part (para. [0026]); and
debinding and sintering the machined green part (para. [0029]).
Campomanes is silent towards a clamp pad engaged to the fixture member, and wherein the clamp pad has a second surface hardness smaller than the first surface hardness.
Tong teaches wherein a clamping fixture member is fixed with a rubber pad in order to prevent a workpiece from being damaged (para. [0030]).
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 a rubber clamping pad which is fixed to the fixture member of the retaining fixture (clamp), as taught by Tong, for the invention disclosed by Campomanes, in order to prevent the workpiece (green body) from being damaged (see teaching above).
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that rubber would have a smaller surface hardness than the injection molded 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.
Tong is silent towards the coefficient of friction of the rubber pad and the workpiece. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the coefficient of friction of the surface of the rubber material of the clamp pad would comprise a greater coefficient of friction than the surface of a green compact comprising the injection molded material of nickel superalloy powder and binder (see para. [0018] of Campomanes).
Further, the clamp pad material and the green compact material are the same as the instant invention (Tong, para. [0030], rubber; Campomanes, para. [0018] nickel superalloy and binder; instant specification, para. [0024], rubber-based material and para. [0018], nickel superalloy powder and binder), 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.
Regarding Claim 2, Campomanes discloses disengaging the machined green part from the fixture (support) member and retaining fixture, and therefore the clamping pad taught by Tong, prior to debinding and sintering (para. [0027]-[0028]; para. [0036]).
Regarding Claim 3, Campomanes discloses wherein the fixture (support) member and retaining fixture, and therefore the clamping pad taught by Tong, maintains the green body in a fixed position during machining (para. [0026]).
Regarding Claim 4, Campomanes discloses wherein machining the green body includes rotating the green body with the fixture (support) member and retaining fixture, and therefore with the clamping pad taught by Tong as well (para. [0035]).
Regarding Claim 5, Tong teaches wherein the rubber clamping pad is fixed to the fixture (support) member, but fails to disclose further details of the fixing.
Campomanes teaches fixing two retaining members for machining together by using complementary locating features snuggly engageable with one another in order to engage one component with another in a known location (para. [0025], wherein both the outer portion of the support (fixture) member and the outer portion of the green body, and the outer portion of the support (fixture) member and the retaining fixture, each comprise a pair of complementary locating features snuggly engageable with one another; Claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further fixed the clamping pad of Tong to the retaining member of Campomanes by means of complementary locating features snuggly engageable with one another, as taught by Campomanes, in order to engage the clamp pad in a known location within the retaining member (see teaching above).
Regarding Claim 9, Tong discloses a rubber clamp pad which comprises a green-body engaging surface and a fixture engaging surface which engages the fixture member as claimed (para. [0030]). Tong is silent towards the coefficient of friction of the rubber pad and the workpiece. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the coefficient of friction of the surface of the rubber material of the clamp pad would comprise a greater coefficient of friction than the surface of a green compact comprising the injection molded material of nickel superalloy powder and binder (see para. [0018] of Campomanes).
Further, the clamp pad material and the green compact material are the same as the instant invention (Tong, para. [0030], rubber; Campomanes, para. [0018] nickel superalloy and binder; instant specification, para. [0024], rubber-based material and para. [0018], nickel superalloy powder and binder), and it would be obvious that during the supporting of the green body through the engagement of the clamp pad, the clamp pad has a green-body engaging surface coefficient of friction which is greater than the green body surface coefficient of friction, as claimed, because the component materials during machining 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.
Regarding Claim 11, Tong discloses wherein the clamping pad is made of rubber. 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campomanes (US 20160016329 A1) in view of Tong (CN 110560693 A, English Machine translation provided), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Boesel (WO 9945293 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Tong teaches wherein the rubber clamping pad is fixed to the fixture (support) member, but fails to disclose further details of the fixing and does not disclose fasteners.
Boesel teaches wherein 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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have fastened the clamp pad with fasteners to the fixture member, as taught by Boesel, for the invention disclosed by Tong, in order to fix the clamp pad in place, as taught by Tong, and because Boesel demonstrates this is a known method for fixing a clamp pad (see teachings above).
Claims 7-8 and 10 are rejected, and Claim 11 is alternatively rejected, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campomanes (US 20160016329 A1) in view of Tong (CN 110560693 A, English Machine translation provided), as applied to Claim 1 and Claim 9 above, respectively, in further view of Verbrugge (US 20060157908 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Tong selects a rubber clamp pad to reduce damage to the workpiece. Selecting a particular material (rubber) reads on selecting the clamp pad from a set of clamp pads having different configurations (different materials reads on different configurations) of a green-body-engaging surface. Selecting the clamp pad to result in reduced surface damage to the workpiece reads on the clamp pad being selected based on the green-body-engaging surface as claimed.
Tong does not disclose wherein the pad is selected based on a surface profile of the green body.
Verbrugge teaches a clamping fixture comprising 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]).
Verbrugge further teaches wherein the pad which is contoured to the workpiece distributes the reaction forces from clamping over a large area, thereby minimizing the possibility of damaging the surface of the workpiece (para. [0044]). Thus, the clamp pad of Verbrugge is selected based on the surface of the workpiece to mitigate damage.
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 a clamp pad which is a shape memory material, such as a shape memory polymer, and configured to selectively conform to a surface contour of a workpiece, and therefore based on surface and on a surface profile of the green body as claimed, as taught by Verbrugge, for the invention disclosed by Campomanes and Tong. One would be motivated to do this in order to provide adequate support and clamping means for a variety of workpiece configurations and in order to distribute reaction forces from clamping over a large area, thereby minimizing the possibility of damaging the surface of the workpiece (see teachings above; minimizing surface damage also desired by Tong – see teachings above).
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.
Regarding Claim 8, Verbrugge further discloses wherein the clamp pad is configured to be compatible with a fixture member comprising a locating feature and is suitable for clamping in operations such as machining (para. [0032] and Fig. 1, adapted for fixture comprising locator pin; para. [0006], applicable to production machining operations), and therefore reads on wherein the clamp pad is based on a configuration of at least one of the fixture member and the machine tool, as claimed.
Regarding Claim 10, Tong discloses a rubber clamp pad to reduce damage to the workpiece, but fails to expressly disclose wherein the clamp pad spreads a load applied by the fixture member over the green-body-engaging surface of the clamp pad, as claimed.
Verbrugge teaches a clamping fixture comprising 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]).
Verbrugge teaches wherein the pad which is contoured to the workpiece distributes the reaction forces from clamping over a large 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 used a clamp pad which is a shape memory material, such as a shape memory polymer, and configured to selectively conform to a surface contour of a workpiece and therefore distribute reaction forces from clamping over a large area, as claimed and as taught by Verbrugge, for the invention disclosed by Campomanes and Tong. One would be motivated to do this in order to provide adequate support and clamping means for a variety of workpiece configurations and in order to distribute reaction forces from clamping over a large area, thereby minimizing the possibility of damaging the surface of the workpiece (see teachings above; minimizing surface damage also desired by Tong – see teachings above).
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.
Regarding Claim 11, Tong discloses wherein the clamping pad is made of rubber, but does not expressly disclose wherein the clamping pad conforms to the surface of the green body, as claimed.
Verbrugge teaches a clamping fixture comprising 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]).
Verbrugge teaches wherein the pad which is contoured to the workpiece distributes the reaction forces from clamping over a large 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 used a clamp pad which is a shape memory material, such as a shape memory polymer, and configured to selectively conform to a surface contour of a workpiece, as claimed and as taught by Verbrugge, for the invention disclosed by Campomanes and Tong. One would be motivated to do this in order to provide adequate support and clamping means for a variety of workpiece configurations and in order to distribute reaction forces from clamping over a large area, thereby minimizing the possibility of damaging the surface of the workpiece (see teachings above; minimizing surface damage also desired by Tong – see teachings above).
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hu (CN 115502398 A): 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 (“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.
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