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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, see remarks Pg. 7 of 8, there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation to combine the prior art of Wilke and Wang.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the claim limitation of a work table having an average surface roughness of 1 to 4 micrometers is taught by the prior art of Wang (¶0052). Though the prior art of Wilke is silent on the specific property it would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the surface of the worktable to have an average surface roughness as claimed for processing a workpiece as taught by Wang, and to provide a surface to allow for an easier adhesion of the low friction coating to the engagement surface of the work table. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the work table engagement surface of Wilke to have an average surface roughess (Ra) of between about 1 to 4 micrometers as taught by Wang in order to provide a smooth engagement surface of applying the low friction coating to. For the above reason, the claims do not overcome the prior art of record.
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 and applying the low friction coating to.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights