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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on November 14, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilke et al. US 2003/0097921 in view of Wang CN 107791217A.
Wilke discloses a tooling system for performing a manufacturing operation on a workpiece, the tooling system comprising: a work table having a workpiece engagement surface (14, 38, 42, 44, 56) oriented to support the workpiece, the workpiece engagement surface having a surface roughness; a working element (22,34,60) operable to engage the workpiece when the workpiece is positioned on the work piece engagement surface; and a low friction coating (¶0006) disposed on the workpiece engagement surface of the work table.
Wilke discloses a workpiece engagement surface but does not specify wherein the surface has an average surface roughness (Ra) of between about 1 micrometer and about 4 micrometers. However, a work table having an average surface roughness between about 1 micrometer and about 4 micrometers is well known in the art as evidence by Wang who teaches work table (5) having surface roughness of 1.6 microns (¶0052). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the average surface roughness of the work table of Wilke between about 1 micrometer and about 4 micrometers as taught by Wang in order to provide a somewhat smooth surface for supporting a workpiece to be machined.
As for claim 2, the modified Wilke teaches wherein the low friction coating is a fluoropolymer coating (Wilke, ¶0006).
As for claim 3, the modified Wilke teaches wherein the low friction coating is a polytetrafluoroethylene coating (Wilke, ¶0006).
As for claim 5, the modified Wilke teaches wherein the low friction coating is a single layer coating (Wilke, ¶0011, fluoropolymer layer).
As for claim 6, the modified Wilke teaches wherein the average surface roughness is between about 1.5micrometers and about 3.5 micrometers (as taught by Wang, ¶0052).
As for claim 7, Wang specifies wherein the average surface roughness is 1.6 micrometers but does not specify wherein it is between 2 micrometers and about 3 micrometers. However, it would have been obvious to modify the average surface roughness of Wilke between about 2 micrometers and about 3 micrometers as applicant has not stated that an increase in surface roughness provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem other than providing a relatively smooth surface as is commonly found between a Roughness average of 1.5 micrometers to 3.5 micrometers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the surface roughness average of the modified Wilke as taught by Zang and applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either because both would perform the same function of providing a relative smooth surface. It therefore would have been obvious through routine engineering to modify the surface roughness average to about 2 micrometers to about 3 micrometers.
As for claim 8, the modified Wilke teaches wherein the low friction coating (Teflon, ¶0006) has a coefficient of kinect friction that is less than 0.2 (Applicant’s written specification ¶0025).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilke et al. US 2003/0097921 in view of Wang CN 107791217A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cardoso et al US 8158251.
As for claim 4, the modified Wilke teaches all the limitations as recited above but does not specify the thickness of the low friction coating specifically does not specify wherein the thickness is less than or equal to 20 micrometers. However, Cardoso teaches a multilayer low friction coating wherein the middle coat layer is a polytetrafluoroethylene having a thickness between 15-30 micrometers (Cardoso, col. 8, lines 38-44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the thickness of the low friction coating of Wilke to less than or equal to 20 micrometers as taught by Cardoso in order to provide a surface that is non-scratching and low friction.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilke et al. US 2003/0097921 in view of Wang CN 107791217A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clark US 8469343.
PNG
media_image1.png
326
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 9, the modified Wilke teaches all the limitations and further teaches tooling accessories (fence, 46 and various tools ¶0004) but does not specify wherein said tools include at least one non-scratching element coupled thereto, the at least one non-scratch element oriented to engage the low friction coating between the tooling accessory and the low friction coating. However, Clark teaches a tool accessory (300) provided with at least one non-scratching element (307, col. 4, lines 45-56) coupled thereto, the at least one non-scratch element oriented to engage a surface (230) of a track (200). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the tool accessory of Wilke to include a non-scratching element as taught by Clark in order to provide a non-scratching engagement element between the tool accessory and the low friction coating work surface while being used.
As for claim 10, the modified Wilke teaches wherein the one or more tooling accessories includes a miter gauge (Wilke, 46) or a jointer blade guard (Wilke, ¶0004).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYRONE V HALL JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5948. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm.
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.
/TYRONE V HALL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723