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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 15 (line 1), the phrase should recite “A punch retainer for use with a punch of a type.”
Claim 32, the phrase should recite “a radius of the cross section of the orientation element hole extends into.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 34 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 34 recites the broad recitation “wherein the orientation element hole extends from the outer face toward, a the at least partially closed bottom of the punch hole,” and the claim also recites “and only part way to,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 (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 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 1, 15, 27-31, and 34-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 3,137,193 to Whistler, Sr et al. (hereinafter, Whistler) in view of US Patent No. 2,152,072 to Maute and in further view of US Patent No. 8,459,161 to Moellering.
In re claim 1, Whistler teaches a punch system for use with a punch press, the punch system comprising:
a punch (60) and a punch retainer (30) configured to receive and retain the punch;
the punch comprising:
a punch body (as shown in at least Figure 2) having a tip (63) for piercing material and a base (as shown in at least Figures 1 and 2) to be received in the punch retainer (30);
a ball lock recess (70,71) defined in a side surface of the base; and
the punch retainer comprising:
a retainer body having a mounting surface (see Annotated Figure 1) for attachment to a punch press and an opposite outer face (see Annotated Figure 1);
a punch hole (35) extending from the outer face at least part way to the mounting surface for receiving the base of the punch, the punch hole having a generally circular cross section (as shown in at least Figures 1 and 2), the punch hole having an open top (the punch 60 is inserted via the open top) and terminating in an at least partially closed bottom (as shown in at least Figures 1 and 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
591
303
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Whistler teaches a punch system, but does not teach an alignment feature defined in the side surface of the base, extending from an end surface of the base towards the tip and an orientation element extending partially into the punch hole from the open top toward the at least partially closed bottom, the orientation element having a shape complementary to the alignment element feature in the base of the punch.
Maute teaches an alignment feature (19) defined in the side surface of the base, and an orientation element (15,20) extending partially into the punch hole from the open top toward the at least partially closed bottom (as shown in at least Figure 2), the orientation element (20) having a shape complementary to the alignment feature (19, as shown in at least Figure 3) in the base of the punch.
There are various ways to secure a punch relative to a retainer. Whistler teaches securing the punch via a dual locking system including a set screw (75) and pin (105), which are located less than 180 degrees with respect to one another. Matue provides a teaching of a different mechanical locking arrangement to secure the punch relative to the retainer to improve retaining interchangeable punches.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (when building Whistler from the ground up) to replace the set screw and pin arrangement of Whistler with a alignment feature and orientation element as taught by Maute to improve retaining interchangeable punches while also permitting installation and removal in a minimum time period (Pg. 1, lines 5-10).
Whistler teaches a dual punch locking system including a set pin (75) and pin (150), but does not teach a spring loaded ball biased into a locking position wherein the ball partially extends into the punch hole.
Moellering teaches a punch retainer having a spring loaded ball (44,46) biased into a locking position wherein the ball partially extends into the punch hole (32). The spring loaded ball works with a set screw (50) to permit adjustment of the ball if additional force is needed (Col. 4, lines 46-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Whistler (when building from the ground up) with a spring loaded ball and set screw arrangement as taught by Mollering to permit adjustment of the compression of the spring to compensate for fatigue of the spring, which increases the life of the retainer (Col. 4, lines 58-67). The modification of Whistler in view of Mollering would lead to the base of the punch is only insertable into the punch hole in an orientation in which the ball lock recess in the base of the punch is rotationally aligned with the spring loaded ball.
In re claim 15, Whistler teaches a punch retainer (30) for use with a punch of the type having a base with an alignment feature with a generally circular cross section, the punch retaining comprising:
a retainer body having a mounting surface (see Annotated Figure 1 on Pg. 4, above) for attachment to a punch press and an opposite outer face (see Annotated Figure 1, on Pg. 4, above);
a punch hole (35) extending from the outer face at least part way to the mounting surface for receiving the base of the punch, the punch hole having a generally circular cross section, the punch hole having an open top and terminating in an at least partially closed bottom (as shown in at least Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 15, Whistler teaches a dual punch locking system including a set pin (75) and pin (150), but does not teach a spring loaded ball biased into a locking position wherein the ball partially extends into the punch hole.
Moellering teaches a punch retainer having a spring loaded ball (44,46) biased into a locking position wherein the ball partially extends into the punch hole (32). The spring loaded ball works with a set screw (50) to permit adjustment of the ball if additional force is needed (Col. 4, lines 46-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Whistler (when building from the ground up) with a spring loaded ball and set screw arrangement as taught by Mollering to permit adjustment of the compression of the spring to compensate for fatigue of the spring, which increases the life of the retainer (Col. 4, lines 58-67). The modification of Whistler in view of Mollering would lead to the base of the punch is only insertable into the punch hole in an orientation in which the ball lock recess in the base of the punch is rotationally aligned with the spring loaded ball.
Regarding claim 15 and 27, Whistler teaches a punch system, but does not teach an orientation element extending partially into the punch hole from the open top toward the at least partially closed bottom, the orientation element having a shape complementary to the alignment element feature in the base of the punch and the orientation element includes an orientation hole that partially overlaps the punch hole.
Maute teaches an alignment feature (19) defined in the side surface of the base, and an orientation element (15,20) extending partially into the punch hole from the open top toward the at least partially closed bottom (as shown in at least Figure 2), the orientation element (20) having a shape complementary to the alignment feature (19, as shown in at least Figure 3) and the base of the punch and the orientation element (20) includes an orientation hole that partially overlaps the punch hole (12).
There are various ways to secure a punch relative to a retainer. Whistler teaches securing the punch via a dual locking system including a set screw (75) and pin (105), which are located less than 180 degrees with respect to one another. Matue provides a teaching of a different mechanical locking arrangement to secure the punch relative to the retainer to improve retaining interchangeable punches.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (when building Whistler from the ground up) to replace the set screw and pin arrangement of Whistler with an alignment feature and orientation element as taught by Maute to improve retaining interchangeable punches while also permitting installation and removal in a minimum time period (Pg. 1, lines 5-10).
In re claim 28, Whistler teaches a punch assembly for use with a punch press comprising:
a punch retainer (30) comprising:
a retainer body having a mounting surface (see Annotated Figure 1 on Pg. 4, above) for attachment to a punch press and an opposite outer face (see Annotated Figure 1, on Pg. 4, above);
a punch hole (35) defined in the retain body and extending from the outer face toward the mounting surface, the punch hole being open at the outer face and having at least partially closed bottom (as shown in at least Figures 1 and 2) spaced from the outer face.
In re claim 29, further comprising a punch (60) and wherein at least a portion of the punch is shaped to be received within the punch hole (35).
Regarding claim 28, Whistler teaches a dual punch locking system including a set pin (75) and pin (150), but does not teach a spring loaded ball biased into a locking position wherein the ball partially extends into the punch hole.
Moellering teaches a punch retainer having a spring loaded ball (44,46) biased into a locking position wherein the ball partially extends into the punch hole (32). The spring loaded ball works with a set screw (50) to permit adjustment of the ball if additional force is needed (Col. 4, lines 46-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Whistler (when building from the ground up) with a spring loaded ball and set screw arrangement as taught by Mollering to permit adjustment of the compression of the spring to compensate for fatigue of the spring, which increases the life of the retainer (Col. 4, lines 58-67).
Regarding claim 28, Whistler teaches a punch system, but does not teach an orientation element hole defined in the retainer body and extending from the outer face toward mounting surface, the orientation element hole being open to the punch hole.
Maute teaches an alignment feature (20) defined in the side surface of the base, and an orientation element hole (19) defined in the retainer body (30) and extending from the outer face toward the mounting surface, the orientation element hole (19) being open to the punch hole (12).
There are various ways to secure a punch relative to a retainer. Whistler teaches securing the punch via a dual locking system including a set screw (75) and pin (105), which are located less than 180 degrees with respect to one another. Maute provides a teaching of a different mechanical locking arrangement to secure the punch relative to the retainer to improve retaining interchangeable punches.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (when building Whistler from the ground up) to replace the set screw and pin arrangement of Whistler with an alignment feature and orientation element as taught by Maute to improve retaining interchangeable punches while also permitting installation and removal in a minimum time period (Pg. 1, lines 5-10).
In re claim 30, modified Whistler teaches further comprising an orientation element (20, Maute) and wherein the orientation element is positioned in the orientation element hole (19, Maute) and the punch hole (12, Maute) to orient the punch within the punch hole.
In re claim 31, modified Whistler teaches wherein a cross section of the punch hole (35, Whistler) is generally circular and a radius of the cross section of the punch hole (12, Maute) extends into the orientation hole element (19, Maute).
In re claim 34, as best understood, modified Whistler teaches wherein the orientation element hole (19, Maute) extends from the outer face toward, and only part way to, the at least partially closed bottom of the punch hole (30, Whistler).
In re claim 35, modified Whistler teaches wherein the orientation element hole (20, Maute) is circumferentially spaced (as shown in at least Figure 5, Whistler) from the spring loaded ball relative to the punch hole.
In re claim 36, modified Whistler teaches wherein the punch hole (12, Maute) is defined by a first sidewall (see Annotated Figure 2) that extends from the outer face toward the mounting surface (as shown in at least Figure 2, Maute);
the orientation element hole is defined by a second side wall (see Annotated Figure 2) that extends from the outer face toward the mounting surface; and
the second side wall is outward of the first sidewall relative to the punch hole.
PNG
media_image2.png
428
382
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Note, the first and second side walls extend in and out of the paper.
In re claim 37, wherein the first sidewall abuts the second side wall.
In re claim 38, wherein the second side wall extends from the first sidewall away from the punch hole.
In re claim 39, modified Whistler teaches wherein the orientation element hole (20, Maute) partially overlaps the punch hole (12, Maute).
Claims 2-8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whistler, Sr et al. (hereinafter, Whistler) in view of Maute and in further view of Moellering, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent No. 4,171,656 to Gargrave and US Patent No. 6,877,353 to Rassette et al.
In re claim 2, modified Whistler teaches wherein the alignment feature (19, Maute) of the punch comprises a slot defined in the side surface of the base (as shown in at least Figure 2, Maute), extending from a surface of the base towards the tip (as shown in Figure 2, Maute).
In re claims 3 and 16, modified Whistler teaches wherein the punch retainer comprises a dowel hole (19, Maute) defined in the outer face adjacent to the punch hole and partially overlapping therewith; and a dowel (20) received in the dowel hole such that a portion of a side of the dowel extends partially into the punch hole (12) so as to define a protrusion, the protrusion defining the orientation element, wherein the protrusion has a shape complementary to slot in the side surface of the punch.
Regarding claim 2, modified Whistler teaches a slot, but does not teach the slot extending from an end surface of the base towards the tip
Gargrave teaches a punch (32) having an alignment feature (48) extending from an end surface of the base towards the tip.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to extend the length of the alignment feature of modified Whistler to the base of the punch as taught by Gargrave to maintain guiding and controlled movement of the punch as it enters the bore (Col. 5, lines 1-13).
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 16 modified Whistler teaches the alignment feature having slot, but does not teach the slot (dowel hole) having an arcuate cross section and the dowel having a cylindrical shape.
Rassette teaches in the art of punches, an alignment feature (dowel hole, 27) having an arcuate cross section, which receives a cylindrical dowel (24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to change the shape of the alignment feature and corresponding orientation element (or dowel) of modified Whistler to have an arcuate cross section and arcuate protrusion as taught by Rassette to maintain retaining the punch in a desired position. Changing the shape is an obvious design variant and will not impact the function of the alignment feature or orientation element.
In re claims 4 and 17, modified Whistler teaches wherein the dowel hole (19, Maute) has a depth less than a depth of the punch hole (12, Maute).
In re claim 5, modified Whistler teaches wherein:
the arcuate slot in the side surface of the punch has a length greater than the depth of the punch hole and less than a sum of the depth of the punch hole and the depth of the dowel hole (as shown in at least Figure 2, Gargrave);
whereby the dowel cannot exit the dowel hole when the punch is retained in the punch retainer.
In re claims 6 and 18, modified Whistler teaches wherein less than 50% of the dowel defines the arcuate protrusion (as shown in at least Figure 2, Maute) and more than 50% of the dowel is embedded in the retainer body (10, Maute).
In re claim 7, modified Whistler teaches wherein:
the punch hole (35, Whistler) has a depth; and
the arcuate slot (48, Gargrave) in the side surface of the punch having has a length equal to or greater than the depth of the punch hole and less than a length of the punch (as shown in at least Figure 2, Gargrave).
In re claim 8, modified Whistler teaches wherein the length of the arcuate slot (50, Gargrave) is in the range of 100% to 120% of the depth of the punch hole.
Examiner notes, the length of the slot of Gargrave is at least 100% of the of the punch hole and has additional values exceeding 100%. It has been interpreted, the length of the slot of Gargrave has a plurality of data points which lie within the claimed range (and potentially outside as well). "[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original) (Claims to titanium (Ti) alloy with 0.6-0.9% nickel (Ni) and 0.2-0.4% molybdenum (Mo) were held anticipated by a graph in a Russian article on Ti-Mo-Ni alloys because the graph contained an actual data point corresponding to a Ti alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni and this composition was within the claimed range of compositions.). "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
See MPEP 2131.03, Section I.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whistler, Sr et al. (hereinafter, Whistler) in view of Maute and in further view of Moellering, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent No. 2,393,986 to Gullberg.
In re claims 9 and 19, modified Whistler teaches a dual locking system (via set screw 75 and pin 105). The locking recesses of the dual locking system are disposed less than 180 degrees (as shown in at least Figure 3), therefore, Whistler does not teach wherein the alignment feature of the punch is disposed 180 degrees from the ball lock recess.
Gullberg provides a teaching of securing a punch (1) relative to a retainer (2) by a dual locking mechanism (7) and (13), which are located in an opposing relationship of 180 degrees. The locking mechanism (7) and (13) permits proper engagement, alignment, and unwanted rotation of the punch (Pg. 2, lines 23-36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, in light of the teachings of a dual locking mechanism as taught by Gullberg, to provide the locking mechanisms of modified Whistler in an opposing relationship of 180 degrees as taught by Gullberg to permit release and removal of the punch without disassembly of the entire punch (Pg. 1, lines 18-22). This also permits maintaining precise positioning of the punch. The modification will yield to a dual locking mechanism, in which the ball lock will be one lock and the alignment feature and orientation will permit both guiding and locking.
Claims 10, 14, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 4,558,602 to Wallis in view of US Patent No. 2,393,986 to Gullberg and in further view of US Patent No. 4,171,656 to Gargrave or Maute.
In re claim 10, Wallis teaches a punch for use with a ball lock punch retainer having an orientation element extending partially into a punch hole in the retainer, the punch comprising:
a punch body (as shown in at least Figure 1) having a tip (50) for piercing material and a base (see Annotated Figure 1, below) to be received in the punch retainer;
a ball lock recess (as shown in at least Figure 1; see Annotated Figure 1=3, below) defined in a side surface of the base.
PNG
media_image4.png
436
505
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Wallis teaches a ball lock recess, but does not teach an alignment feature defined in the side surface of the base, extending from an end surface of the base towards the tip the alignment feature being configured to be complementary to the orientation element.
The punch art provides various teachings of securing a punch relative to a retainer. One teaching is provided by Gullberg. Gullberg provides a teaching of securing a punch (1) relative to a retainer (2) by a dual locking mechanism (7) and (13), which are in an opposing relationship spaced 180 degrees. The locking mechanism (7) and (13) permits proper engagement, alignment, and unwanted rotation of the punch (Pg. 2, lines 23-36).
Another teaching in the art of securing a punch relative to a retainer is taught by Gargrave. Gargrave teaches a punch having an alignment feature (48) defined in the side surface of the blade extending from an end surface of the base (of the punch) towards the tip. The alignment feature (50) is a v-shaped notch and works in conjunction with an orientation element (42, which is a cylindrical rod-like device) comprises a slot in the side surface of the base. This aids in positioning and securing the punch relative to the retainer.
Maute also teaches an alignment feature (19) being complimentary to the orientation element (20), the alignment feature comprising a slot (19) in a side surface of the base, the slot having a length less than a length of the base of the punch body (as shown in at least Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, in view of the teachings of dual locking mechanism of Gullberg, to provide Wallis with an alignment feature as taught by Gargrave or Maute in order to aid to guide the punch in a straight line in a controlled movement (Col. 4, lines 66-68, Col 5, lines 1-11, Gargrave) during insertion. This permits precise positioning of the punch. The modification of Wallis would lead to the ball lock recess working as a dual locking mechanism with the alignment feature.
In re claim 14, modified Wallis teaches wherein the alignment feature of the punch is disposed 180 degrees from the ball lock recess (as shown in at least Figure 1 of Gullberg).
In re claim 26, modified Wallis teaches wherein the slot extends from the end surface of the base toward the tip of the punch body beyond the ball lock recess (as shown in at least Figure 1, Gargrave).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallis in view of Gullberg and in further view of Gargrave or Maute, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of Rassette et al.
In re claim 12, modified Wallis teaches a punch having a slot, but does not teach the slot has an arcuate cross section.
Rassette teaches in the art of punches, an alignment feature (slot, 27) having an arcuate cross section, which receives a cylindrical dowel (24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to change the shape of the alignment feature and corresponding orientation element of Wallis to have an arcuate cross section and arcuate protrusion as taught by Rassette to maintain retaining the punch in a desired position. Changing the shape is an obvious design variant and will not impact the function of the alignment feature or orientation element.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whistler, Sr et al. (hereinafter, Whistler) in view of Gargrave in further view of Maute and in further view of Moellering.
In re claim 20 Whistler teaches method of providing a punch system for use with a punch press, comprising:
providing a punch (60) having a tip (as shown in at least figure 1) for piercing material and a base (as shown in at least Figure 1) to be received in a punch retainer (30);
defining a ball lock recess (70,71) in a side surface of the base;
providing a punch retainer body (30) having a mounting surface for attachment to a punch press (22) and an opposite outer face;
defining a punch hole (35), the punch hole having an open top and terminating in an at least partially closed bottom (as shown in at least Figure 2), the punch hole extending from the outer face at least part way to the mounting surface for receiving the base of the punch, the punch hole having a generally circular cross section (as shown in at least Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 20, Gargrave teaches a punch having an alignment feature (48) defined in the side surface of the blade extending from an end surface of the base (of the punch) towards the tip.
Maute also teaches an alignment feature (19) defined in the side surface of the base, and an orientation element (15,20) extending partially into the punch hole from the open top toward the at least partially closed bottom (as shown in at least Figure 2), the orientation element (20) having a shape complementary to the alignment feature (19, as shown in at least Figure 3) in the base of the punch.
There are various ways to secure a punch relative to a retainer. Whistler teaches securing the punch via a dual locking system including a set screw (75) and pin (105), which are located less than 180 degrees with respect to one another. Matue provides a teaching of a different mechanical locking arrangement to secure the punch relative to the retainer to improve retaining interchangeable punches.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (when building Whistler from the ground up) to replace the set screw and pin arrangement of Whistler with an alignment feature and orientation element as taught by Gargrave and Maute to improve retaining interchangeable punches while also permitting installation and removal in a minimum time period (Pg. 1, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 20, Whistler teaches a dual punch locking system including a set pin (75) and pin (150), but does not teach a spring loaded ball biased into a locking position wherein the ball partially extends into the punch hole.
Moellering teaches a punch retainer having a spring loaded ball (44,46) biased into a locking position wherein the ball partially extends into the punch hole (32). The spring loaded ball works with a set screw (50) to permit adjustment of the ball if additional force is needed (Col. 4, lines 46-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Whistler (when building from the ground up) with a spring loaded ball and set screw arrangement as taught by Mollering to permit adjustment of the compression of the spring to compensate for fatigue of the spring, which increases the life of the retainer (Col. 4, lines 58-67). The modification of Whistler in view of Mollering would lead to the base of the punch is only insertable into the punch hole in an orientation in which the ball lock recess in the base of the punch is rotationally aligned with the spring loaded ball.
Claim 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whistler, Sr et al. (hereinafter, Whistler) in view of Gargrave and in further view of Maute and in further view of Moellering, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of Rassette et al.
In re claim 21, modified Whistler teaches wherein the step of providing the orientation element in the puuch retaining body comprises:
defining a dowel hole (19, Maute) defined in the outer face adjacent to the punch hole and partially overlapping therewith;
providing a dowel (20, Maute)
receiving a dowel (20, Maute) in the dowel hole such that a portion of a side of the dowel extends partially into the punch hole (12, Maute) so as to define a protrusion, the protrusion defining the orientation element.
Regarding claim 21, modified Whistler teaches the alignment feature having slot, but does not teach the slot (dowel hole) having an arcuate cross section and the dowel having a cylindrical shape.
Rassette teaches in the art of punches, an alignment feature (dowel hole, 27) having an arcuate cross section, which receives a cylindrical dowel (24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to change the shape of the alignment feature and corresponding orientation element (or dowel) of modified Whistler to have an arcuate cross section and arcuate protrusion as taught by Rassette to maintain retaining the punch in a desired position. Changing the shape is an obvious design variant and will not impact the function of the alignment feature or orientation element.
In re claim 22, modified Whistler teaches wherein the step of defining the dowel hole (19, Maute) has a depth less than a depth of the punch hole (12, Maute).
In re claim 23, modified Whistler teaches wherein:
the step of defining the alignment feature in the side surface of the punch comprises defining a slot having an arcuate cross section, the slot having a length greater than the depth of the punch hole and less than a sum of the depth of the punch hole and the depth of the dowel hole (as shown in at least Figure 2, Gargrave);
whereby the dowel cannot exit the dowel hole when the punch is retained in the punch retainer.
In re claim 24, modified Whistler teaches the step defining the dowl hole comprises positioning the dowel hole such that less than 50% of the dowel defines the arcuate protrusion (as shown in at least Figure 2, Maute) and more than 50% of the dowel is embedded in the retainer body (10, Maute).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whistler, Sr et al. (hereinafter, Whistler) in view of Gargrave and in further view of Maute and in further view of Moellering, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of Gullberg.
In re claim 25, modified Whistler teaches a dual locking system (via set screw 75 and pin 105). The locking recesses of the dual locking system are disposed less than 180 degrees (as shown in at least Figure 3), therefore, Whistler does not teach wherein the alignment feature of the punch is disposed 180 degrees from the ball lock recess.
Gullberg provides a teaching of securing a punch (1) relative to a retainer (2) by a dual locking mechanism (7) and (13), which are located in an opposing relationship of 180 degrees. The locking mechanism (7) and (13) permits proper engagement, alignment, and unwanted rotation of the punch (Pg. 2, lines 23-36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, in light of the teachings of a dual locking mechanism as taught by Gullberg, to provide the locking mechanisms of modified Whistler in an opposing relationship of 180 degrees as taught by Gullberg to permit release and removal of the punch without disassembly of the entire punch (Pg. 1, lines 18-22). This also permits maintaining precise positioning of the punch. The modification will yield to a dual locking mechanism, in which the ball lock will be one lock and the alignment feature and orientation will permit both guiding and locking.
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whistler, Sr et al. (hereinafter, Whistler) in view of Maute and in further view of Moellering, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of Rassette et al.
In re claim 32, modified Whistler teaches wherein a cross section of the orientation element hole has a shape, but does not teach is generally circular and a radius of the cross section the orientation element hole extends into the punch hole.
Rassette teaches in the art of punches, an orientation element hole (27) is generally circular and a radius of the cross section of the orientation element hole extends into the punch hole.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to change the shape of the orientation element hole and corresponding orientation element (or dowel) of modified Whistler to have a generally circular shape as taught by Rassette to maintain retaining the punch in a desired position. Changing the shape is an obvious design variant and will not impact the function of the alignment feature or orientation element.
In re claim 33, modified Whistler teaches wherein a cross section of the punch hole (35, Whistler) is generally circular and a cross section of the orientation element hole (27, Rassette) is generally circular, and wherein a radius of the cross section of the punch hole overlaps with a radius of the cross section of the orientation element hole.
Response to Arguments
The claim objections in the Office Action mailed January 9, 2026 have been obviated by the amendments filed April 3, 2026.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10, 12, 14-39 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights