3Notice 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 Amendment / Status of Claims
This action is in response to amendment filed May 28, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. The amendment to the specification has overcome the prior objection to the specification. The amendments to the claims have overcome the prior 112(b) rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stark (US 2007/0063403).
PNG
media_image1.png
404
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Stark Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
530
473
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Stark Figure 2
PNG
media_image3.png
512
543
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Stark Figure 3, annotated
PNG
media_image4.png
618
574
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Stark Figure 5, Annotated Referred to Herein as Figure 5
Regarding Claim 11, Stark teaches: A tooling fixture release system (Fig 1) comprising: a tooling base (1) configurable between a clamped state (See Figure 2) and an unclamped state (See Figure 3), wherein the tooling base (1) includes registration holes (4) configured to receive alignment studs (2) attached to a tooling fixture (19), an internal clamp (See Annotated Figure 5) contained within the tooling base (1), wherein the internal clamp (See Annotated Figure 5) is configured to engage the alignment studs (2) within the registration holes (4) in the clamped state (See Figure 2) and disengage the alignment studs (2) in the unclamped state (See Figure 3), and an ejector component (28) residing within an ejector hole (the hole in which element 103 engages) located in a precision zone (See Annotated Figure 5) on a surface (6) of the tooling base (1), the ejector component (28) being selectively movable between a withdrawn state (see Figure 3) and a raised state (See Figure 5) via actuation of an actuator (See Annotated Figure 5), wherein at least a portion of the ejector component (28) is configured to extend out from the ejector hole (the hole in which element 103 engages) in the raised state (see Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 12, Stark teaches: the ejector component comprises a port hole (See Annotated Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 13, Stark teaches: the substance is compressed air (para 30, ln 2-3).
Regarding Claim 14, Stark teaches: the compressed air is configured to be provided to the tooling base (1) (para 30, ln 2-3) via computer-actuated valves substantially immediately prior to removal of the tooling fixture from the tooling base (para 29-30 {“It is particularly important… actuation of the dual-action cylinder takes place through the machine control unit itself”}).
Regarding Claim 15, Stark teaches: the ejector component is connected to the actuator via a spring (10).
Regarding Claim 16, Stark teaches: the actuator (See Annotated Figure 5) comprises a piston(31) positioned within the tooling base (1), the piston (31) being in contact with a cam (5) that engages with the internal clamp (See Annotated Figure 5, clamping system) to release the tooling fixture (19) from the tooling base (1) during the unclamped state (See Figure 3).
PNG
media_image5.png
586
686
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Stark Figure 5, Annotated Referred to Herein as Figure 5.2
Regarding Claim 17, Stark teaches: An ejector component of a tooling base (See Annotated Figure 5.2) comprising: a body (See Annotated Figure 5.2) having a first end (See Annotated Figure 5.2) and a second end (See Annotated Figure 5.2), the first end (See Annotated Figure 5.2) configured for insertion into an ejector hole (See Annotated Figure 5.2) of the tooling base (1), a first port hole (See Annotated Figure 5.2) formed proximate to the second end (See Annotated Figure 5.2) of the body (See Annotated Figure 5.2), a second port hole (See Annotated Figure 5.2) formed proximate to the first end (See Annotated Figure 5.2), a spring (10) coupled to the first end (See Annotated Figure 5.2) of the body (See Annotated Figure 5.2) to an actuator (See Annotated Figure 5) housed within the tooling base (1), wherein the ejector component (See Annotated Figure 5.2) is selectively movable between a withdrawn state (See Figure 3) and a raised state (See Figure 5), with respect to a surface (6) of the tooling base (1) via manipulation of the actuator (See Annotated Figure 5), wherein the second end (See Annotated Figure 5.2) of the body (See Annotated Figure 5.2) in the raised state extends out from an ejector hole (the hole in which element 103 resides) and above the surface of the tooling base (See Annotated Figure 5.2).
Regarding Claim 18, Stark teaches: the ejector further comprising an internal shaft (27) that extends along an internal length of the body (See Annotated Figure 5.2).
Regarding Claim 19, Stark teaches: the transition of the ejector component (See Annotated Figure 5.2) between the withdrawn state (See Figure 3) and the raised state (See Figure 5) causes a substance to enter the second port hole (See Annotated Figure 5.2), traverse the internal shaft (27), and be expelled from the first port hole (See Annotated Figure 5.2) (para 82-83 {“ As soon as the lifting piston 31 is moved into its position according to FIG. 5 above the top surface of the cover… air also moves via the previously mentioned ascending channel 27 into the intermediate space between the pull-in nipple 32 and the associated surface on the wear insert 28”}).
PNG
media_image6.png
642
462
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Stark Figure 9
Regarding Claim 20, Stark teaches: the ejector component (21) further comprising a groove (106) formed in the body (See Annotated Figure 5.2) wherein the groove (106) is configured to house a pin (58) that orients the ejector component (See Annotated Figure 5.2) toward a predetermined direction.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark (US 2007/0063403) in view of Hauser (US 4927304 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Stark teaches: A tooling base (1) for removably aligning and attaching a tooling fixture to a work surface of a machine (Abstract) comprising: a base housing (11) having an interior (See Annotated Figure 3) and registration holes (4), the registration holes (4) being configured to receive alignment studs (2) (para 7) attached to the tooling fixture (19), a clamping system (See Annotated Figure 5) fit into the interior (40) of the base housing (11), wherein the clamping system (See Annotated Figure 5) comprises a first device (5) configured to secure, when adjusted to a first position (See Figure 2), the tooling fixture (19) to the tooling base (1) via interaction with an indentation (100) on each of the alignment studs (2) the first device (5) further configured to release, when adjusted to a second position (See Figure 3), a hold on the indentation on each of the alignment studs (2) (para 64-65 {“in the interior of rapid-action coupling cylinder 1 is a locking means… moveable into its release position and… into its locking position”}), enabling removal of the tooling fixture (19) from the tooling base (1), and one or more ejector components (28) positioned in the tooling base (1), whereby movement of an actuator (See Annotated Figure 5) causes one or more ejector components (28) to move upwards such that a portion of the one or more ejector components (28) extends out from a top surface of the tooling base (See Figure 5).
Stark does not teach the one or more ejector components able to move upward such that a portion of the ejectors extend out from an ejector hole different from the registration hole.
PNG
media_image7.png
481
380
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Hauser Figure 2
However, in a related device, Hauser teaches a tooling base (2) with one or more ejector components (22), positioned in the tooling base (2) whereby movement of an actuator (23) causes one or more ejector components (22) to move upwards such that a portion of the one or more ejector components (22) extends extend out from one or more corresponding ejector holes (24), different than the registration hole (20), and above a top surface (14) of the tooling base (2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to move the ejector components of Stark to the positions used by Hauser. The ejector components of Hauser differed from the ejector components of Stark in their positioning outside the registration holes. Both components were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, would have been able to substitute the location of the ejectors of Hauser for the location of the ejectors in Stark (i.e. move the ejectors of stark to the locations taught by Hauser) and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Stark and Hauser teaches: the actuator (See Annotated Figure 5 of Stark) is a pneumatic actuator (para 30, ln 2-3 of Stark). Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Stark and Hauser teaches: the pneumatic actuator (See Annotated Figure 5 of Stark) comprises a piston (31 of Stark).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Stark and Hauser teaches: each of the one or more ejector components (28 of Stark) comprises at least one upper port hole (See Annotated Figure 3 of Stark).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Stark and Hauser teaches: the movement of the actuator (See Annotated Figure 5 of Stark) is resultant from an application of compressed air (para 30, ln 2-3 of Stark) to the tooling base (1 of Stark) wherein the application of the compressed air causes a portion of the compressed air to enter a lower air port (See Annotated Figure 3 of Stark) and exit via the at least one upper port hole (See Annotated Figure 3 of Stark) (para 82-83 {“ As soon as the lifting piston 31 is moved into its position according to FIG. 5 above the top surface of the cover… air also moves via the previously mentioned ascending channel 27 into the intermediate space between the pull-in nipple 32 and the associated surface on the wear insert 28”} of Stark).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Stark and Hauser teaches: the at least one upper port hole (See Annotated Figure 3 of Stark) is oriented toward a precision zone (See Annotated Figure 5 of Stark) surrounding the registration holes (4 of Stark) wherein the portion of the compressed air exits the at least one upper port hole toward the precision zone (para 83 “air also moves via the previously mentioned ascending channel 27 into the intermediate space between the pull-in nipple 32 and the associated surface on the wear insert 28”} of Stark).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Stark and Hauser teaches: each of the one or more ejector components (28 of Stark) is operably coupled to the actuator (See Annotated Figure 5 of Stark).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Stark and Hauser teaches: the actuator (See Annotated Figure 5 of Stark) corresponds to a plurality of actuators (para 26-28 {“a row of rapid action coupling cylinders… the individual lifting pistons… linked to each other synchronously” “proposed that each lifting piston is connected… so that when a single drive cylinder is actuated, all toggle joints are actuated accordingly”} of Stark) wherein each of the one or more ejector components (28 of Stark) is operably coupled to one of the plurality of actuators (See Annotated Figure 5 of Stark).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Stark and Hauser teaches: the movement of the actuator (See Annotated Figure 5) is resultant from one of: spring actuation, pneumatic actuation, or hydraulic actuation (para 30, ln 1-5 of Stark).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark (US 2007/0063403) in view of Hauser (US 4927304 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taylor et al. (US 20200346311 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Stark and Hauser teaches the limitations of claim 1 as claimed.
The combination of Stark and Hauser does not teach a tapered region of the first device configured to interact with the indentation.
PNG
media_image8.png
585
383
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Taylor Figure 11
However, in a related device, Taylor teaches a tooling base (901) where a tapered region (1106) of a first device (1102) is configured to interact with an indentation (206) to secure a tooling fixture (106) to the tooling base (901). Taylor further teaches that this device advantageously reduces part count and eases manufacturing (para 5, ln 10-12). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to combine first device of Taylor with the tooling base and ejectors of the combination of Stark and Hauser to advantageously reduce the total part count and ease manufacture (para 5, ln 10-12). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 28, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that in regard to previously presented claim 1 Stark fails to teach one or more ejector components as Stark discloses lifting pistons for guiding in pull-in nipples and are used for receiving “rather than to engage and push a tooling fixture away from a surface of the tooling base.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees as Stark teaches the lifting pistons (21) ejecting compressed air (para 16, ln 1-2). As such, the lifting pistons (21) are considered ejector components.
Applicant further argues that in regard to previously presented claims 10-20 Stark does not teach an “ejector hole” as element 103 is a “locking screw.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees that Stark does not teach an “ejector hole” because as provided above Stark teaches an ejector hole (the hole in which element 103 engages). Examiner does not assert element 103 to be the “ejector hole,” but rather the hole in which it engages.
Applicant further argues that in regard to claim previously presented 17, Stark does not teach “[the] first port hole formed proximate to the second end of the body.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees as Stark teaches two port holes (as labeled in annotated figure 5.2) wherein the second port hole (see annotated figure 5.2) is proximate the first end (see annotated figure 5.2) of the ejector component (see annotated figure 5.2) and in relation to the second port hole (see annotated figure 5.2) the first port hole (see annotated figure 5.2) is proximate to the second end (see annotated figure 5.2) of the ejector component (see annotated figure 5.2). Furthermore, the first port hole (see annotated figure 5.2) is the port hole immediately following the second end (see annotated figure 5.2) meaning proximate.
Applicants further argues that in regard to amended claim 1, Stark does not teach ejector components in separate ejector holes. The argument in regard to amended claim 1 is moot due to new grounds for rejection, as provided above.
Conclusion
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 GRANT D HAY whose telephone number is (571)272-9510. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-3:30pm EST.
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 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.
/G.D.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights