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
Applicants’ election with traverse of invention 1 in the reply filed on 7/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is not a serious search or examination burden. This is not found persuasive because of the different fields of search as set forth in the invention, as well as the mutually distinct claim language as set forth in claim 11 and its dependent claims that would require mutually exclusive text search strategies.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 11-20 are therefore withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the fixture comprising, a housing defining an aperture receiving a projection of the fixture” this is unclear as the housing is the only structure of the fixture claimed and thus appears to be the only part of the fixture and receiving a projection of itself. The claim will be rejected as best understood as to mean that the fixture represents the entirety of the structure, and the housing and projection are subcomponents thereof.
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (CN 211492574U).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a fixture for supporting a tool (16, fig 2), the fixture comprising: a housing (1 and 17, fig 2) defining an aperture (hole inside of 17, fig 2) receiving a projection (9, fig 2) of the fixture; a shaft (14, fig 2)extending through the aperture and into the housing, the shaft including a series of external threads (14 is a screw which has external threading); and an adjustment dial (7, fig 2) threaded onto to the threads of the shaft and including an engagement surface (9, fig 3) in contact with a surface of the projection (bottom of 15 when tightened all the way, fig 3), the adjustment dial configured to adjust a position of the tool relative to the housing when the adjustment dial is rotated relative to and moves along the shaft (as 7 moves the spacing of the housing moves up and down).
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses wherein the shaft includes a first end (side with 16, fig 2) projecting from the aperture and a second end (4, fig 3) disposed at an opposite end of the shaft than the first end and secured to the housing (via mounting hole 2, fig 2).
Regarding claim 8, Wang discloses a set screw (12, fig 1) supported by the housing, the set screw configured to engage an outer perimeter surface of the adjustment dial to fix a position of the adjustment dial relative to the housing (fig 4, it engages the inner screw and the outer surface via 13 to prevent movement of the dial).
Regarding claim 9, Wang discloses wherein the aperture includes a shape that matingly conforms to a cross-sectional shape of the projection (fig 4, the shapes form a complimentary block shape as they are shown as solid in the fig).
Regarding claim 10, Wang discloses wherein a portion of the shaft extends through the tool proximate to the aperture (fig 2, the shaft extends through the entirety of the structure, also examiner notes that the tool is not positively recited in claim one, it is only mentioned as “a fixture for supporting a tool” and “adjustment dial configured to adjust a position of the tool” thus there is no structure associated with said tool).
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 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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Weissenborn (US-Pub 2015/0014910).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Wang does not disclose a knob threaded onto the shaft at the first end, wherein the knob is configured to move along the shaft when rotated relative to the shaft, the knob moving in a direction toward the adjustment dial when rotated in a first direction to clamp the tool between the knob and the engagement surface when the adjustment dial is in a predetermined position relative to the housing.
Weissenborn teaches securing a tool (10, fig 18) via threading a knob (32, fig 18) on one end of a screw (34, fig 1) to secure it to a base (200, fig 18) such that it clamps the tool between the knob and an engagement surface (200, fig 18) when the engagement surface has been adjusted to a predetermined height (par. 0049, this is the function that is cited by the adjustment dial, so when combined with Wang it would be the adjustment dial that is moved relative to the housing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the attachment mechanism disclosed by Wang by threading a knob at the end of the shaft to attach it to the engagement surface based on the teachings of Weissenborn. Doing so would allow for the object to be secured by the user after being placed at the right height (par. 0059), as suggested by Weissenborn.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Sweeney (US-Pub 2023/0211526).
Regarding claims 5-7, Wang does not disclose wherein at least one of the housing and the adjustment dial is formed from a thermoplastic via an additive manufacturing process, wherein the thermoplastic is Acrylonitrile Styrene Acrylate (ASA).
Sweeney teaches a tooling structure (300, fig 3a) formed of a thermoplastic Acrylonitrile Styrene Acrylate (ASA) (par. 0042) via an additive manufacturing process (par. 0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the housing disclosed by Wang by additively manufacturing it of ASA based on the teachings of Sweeney. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that ASA is a known material that can be used for additive manufacturing, and constructing a tooling structure via additive manufacturing allows for more complex geometries and prototyping than traditional manufacturing methods.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hopkins (1737373) discloses an invention that reads on claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN V MEILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9229. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-5pm.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/SEAN V MEILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights