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 for Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 09/01/2026 is acknowledged. Non-elected claims 12-20 are withdrawn from consideration. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/05/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1:
The limitation “a floor assembly jig and a stake” as cited in line 2, should be changed to --the floor assembly jig and the stake--.
“substantially” as cited in lines 5 and 7, should be removed.
In claim 4: “substantially” as cited in line 2, should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (US 20020107607 A1) in view of Copley et al. (US 20090324987 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sakai discloses
A method of locating a stake (jig assembly 23, figs.9a-b) to a floor assembly jig (jig base 26, figs.9a-b) (abstract: “method of producing jig”), comprising:
providing a floor assembly jig and a stake (jig assembly 23, figs.9a-b) having a plurality of segments (jig parts 25, figs.9a-b);
cutting one or more slots (mounting hole 26a, fig.9a) into a structural member (top surface of jig base 26) of the floor assembly jig (jig base 26);
inserting at least one segment (mounting notches 25c, figs.9a-b) of the stake (jig assembly 23) into the one or more slots (mounting hole 26a) thereby providing a substantially precise position and alignment of the stake (jig assembly 23) with respect to the floor assembly jig (jig base 26); and
securing the stake (jig assembly 23) to the floor assembly jig (jig base 26) to maintain the substantially precise position and alignment of the stake (jig assembly 23).
Sakai does not disclose laser cutting one or more slots into a structural member of the floor assembly jig.
Copley discloses laser cutting one or more slots (notches, Par.0062 cited: “…stiffener element blank 30 has a plurality of notches…”) into a structural member (top/bottom part of blank 30, fig.5A) of the floor assembly jig (blank 30, fig.5A) [Par.0062 cited: “…a metal blank which is preferably laser cut so as to have the illustrated shape…”].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sakai, with laser cutting one or more slots into a structural member of the floor assembly jig, as taught by Copley, in order to improve the process of laser cutting.
PNG
media_image1.png
482
743
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the modification of Sakai and Copley discloses
substantially all the features as set forth above. Comley further discloses laser cutting one or more slots (notches, Par.0062 cited: “…stiffener element blank 30 has a plurality of notches…”) provides a gap (gap, fig.5A-C) and a respective stake segment (blank 30, fig.5A) but does not disclose a gap of about 0.010-inch between each slot and a respective stake segment.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify laser cutting one or more slots of Copley, by providing a gap of about 0.010-inch between each slot and a respective stake segment, in order suitable for the user application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 3, the modification of Sakai and Copley discloses
substantially all the features as set forth above. Sakai further discloses inserting the at least one segment (jig parts 25, figs.9a-b) of the stake (jig assembly 23, figs.9a-b) provides a desired position of the stake (jig assembly 23), but does not disclose it is within 10,000ths of an inch.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method step of Sakai, by inserting the at least one segment of the stake provides a desired position of the stake within 10,000ths of an inch, in order suitable for the user application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 4, Sakai discloses
the stake (jig assembly 23, figs.9a-b) to the floor assembly jig (jig base 26, figs.9a-b) comprises connecting the stake (jig assembly 23) to the floor assembly jig (jig base 26) without disrupting the substantially precise position and alignment of the stake (jig assembly 23) but does not disclose welding the stake.
Copley discloses welding the stake (blank 30, fig.5A) [Abstract cited: “…second face sheet is disposed against the second edges of the stiffener elements and the first and second face sheets are autogenously welded to the edges of the stiffener elements…”].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sakai, by welding the stake, as taught by Copley, to the floor assembly jig without disrupting the substantially precise position and alignment of the stake, in order to provide a connection between the stake and the floor assembly jig.
Regarding claim 5, Sakai discloses
providing the stake (jig assembly 23, figs.9a-b) comprises providing a single piece of material shaped with a plurality of segments (jig parts 25, figs.9a-b), wherein the plurality of segments (jig parts 25) comprise at least one segment configured for insertion into the one or more slots (mounting hole 26a, fig.9a).
Regarding claim 6, Sakai discloses
the stake (jig assembly 23, figs.9a-b) comprises a plurality of holes (engagement groove 25a, fig.9a) configured for precisely mounting components (intended use) to the stake (jig assembly 23).
Regarding claim 7, Sakai discloses
mounting a component (intended use) to the stake (jig assembly 23, figs.9a-b) via the plurality of holes (engagement groove 25a, fig.9a).
Regarding claim 8, Sakai does not disclose
at least one of the plurality of holes is a threaded hole configured to receive a set screw, and adjusting a position of the component via the set screw.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify at least one of the plurality of holes of Sakai, is a threaded hole configured to receive a set screw, and adjusting a position of the component via the set screw, in order to improve the engagement parts, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 9, Sakai discloses
at least one of the plurality of holes (engagement groove 25a, fig.9a) is a non-threaded hole configured to receive a dowel (engagement portion of jig parts 25, figs.9a-b), and adjusting alignment of the component (intended use) via the dowel.
Regarding claim 10, Comley discloses
laser cutting one or more slots (notches, Par.0062 cited: “…stiffener element blank 30 has a plurality of notches…”) comprises laser cutting recesses (recess of element blank 30, fig.5a) in inner corners of each of the one or more slots (notches) to form recessed corners (recess of element blank 30).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sakai, with laser cutting one or more slots comprises laser cutting recesses in inner corners of each of the one or more slots to form recessed corners, as taught by Copley, in order to improve the process of laser cutting.
Regarding claim 11, Sakai discloses
laser cutting a protruding portion in an edge of a first structural member (one of jig parts 25, figs.9a-b) and laser cutting a receiving portion in an edge of a second structural member (another of jig parts 25, figs.9a-b) such that the protruding portion is received by the receiving portion when the edge of the first structural member (one of jig parts 25) is aligned with the edge of the second structural member (another of jig parts 25).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamaguchi et al. (US 20040104203 A1) is considered as the relevant prior art in field of laser cutting machine, as shown in fig.1 and abstract, with the method step of cutting the slots, but does not disclose a stake, a floor assembly jig…
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1834. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00am-5.00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached on 571-270-5095. 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.
/PHUONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
09/20/2026
Prosecution Insights