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 Invention II (claims 12-18) in the reply filed on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: outer periphery 64. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: surface 52 of second tool component 18 does not abut fiber preform 14 as described in paragraph [0025]. As best understood based on paragraph [0017], surface 50 of second tool component 18 abuts fiber preform 14.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 3, “the second tool component” should read “the first tool component”
At line 13, “the first diameter” and “the second diameter” should read “a first diameter” and “a second diameter” respectively
At line 15, “the second component” should read “the second tool component”
At lines 16-17, it is presumed to be intended, based on the drawings, that “the first diameter” should read “the second diameter” and has been treated as such for purposes of examination
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
• “piercing element” as recited in at least claim 12 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “piercing”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “piercing” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the element)
• “biasing member” as recited in at least claim 15 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “biasing”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “biasing” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the member)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gregory (US 689394).
Regarding claim 12, Gregory discloses a tool for forming holes in a fiber preform of a ceramic matrix composite component, the tool comprising: a first tool component (see annotated portion of fig. 1 below), the second tool component comprising: a base (see annotated portion of fig. 1 below); and a first stem (female die 20; see fig. 1) extending outward from the base (female die 20 extends out from the base; see fig. 1); a first hole extending through the base and the first stem (female die 20 is hollow throughout its length; see pg. 1, lines 95-97 and fig. 1); and a first surface (see annotated portion of fig. 1 below) at an end of the first stem opposite the base (the first surface is located on an end of female die 20 opposite the base; see fig. 1), wherein the first surface circumscribes the first hole (the first surface is formed around the hole that extends through female die 20; see fig. 1); a second tool component spaced from the first tool component (when the second tool component is retracted, it is spaced apart from the first tool component; see annotated portion of fig. 1 below), the second tool component comprising: a second stem (hollow head 9; see fig. 1); and a second hole (a second hole is formed within hollow head 9; see fig. 1) extending through the second stem coaxially with the first hole (the second hole extends through hollow head 9 and is coaxial to the first hole; see fig. 1), wherein the first diameter is less than the second diameter (at least a portion of the first hole has a smaller diameter than at least a portion of the diameter of the second hole; see fig. 1); a plunger assembly comprising: a collet (movable stripper 18; see fig. 1) longitudinally guided by the second component along the second hole (movable stripper 18 is guided along the axis of the second hole; see figs. 1-2), wherein an outer periphery of the collet conforms to the second diameter (the outer portion of movable stripper 18 conforms to the second diameter such that movable stripper 18 corresponds to at least a portion of the second hole; see fig. 1); and a piercing element (perforator 15; see figs. 1-2) received within the collet (perforator 15 is received within movable stripper 18; see figs. 1-2), wherein the plunger assembly has an extended position in which the piercing element protrudes into the first hole (perforator 15 extends into the first hole in an extended position; see fig. 2) and a retracted position in which the piercing element is entirely within the second hole (perforator 15 is contained within the second hole in a retracted position; see fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
498
353
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Gregory discloses the limitations of claim 12 as described in the rejection above.
Gregory further discloses wherein an outer periphery of the first stem coincides with an outer periphery of the second stem (the outer portion of female die 20 coincides with the outer portion of hollow head 9; see figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 17, Gregory discloses the limitations of claim 16 as described in the rejection above.
Gregory further discloses wherein the first stem and the second stem are tubular (female die 20 and hollow head 9 each have a tubular form designed to accommodate the conical perforator 15; see pg. 1, lines 55-65 and figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 18, Gregory discloses the limitations of claim 12 as described in the rejection above.
Gregory further discloses a support frame (base 7; see fig. 1) that retains the first tool component in fixed relationship to the second tool component (base 7 supports the first tool component such that it remains fixed relative to the second tool component; see pg. 2, lines 31-35 and figs. 1-2).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregory (US 689394) in view of Halamoda (US 20070227217).
Regarding claim 13, Gregory discloses the limitations of claim 12 as described in the rejection above.
Gregory does not explicitly disclose a first support plate having a first face abutting the base of the first tool component and a second face spaced from the first face and aligned with an end of the first stem.
Halamoda discloses a first support plate (lower tool 6; see fig. 1) having a first face abutting the base of the first tool component (lower tool 6 comprises a bottom surface and as modified, this bottom surface abuts the base of the first tool component) and a second face (support surface 7; see fig. 1) spaced from the first face (as modified, support surface 7 is spaced apart from the first face) and aligned with an end of the first stem (support surface 7 is aligned with opening 11 which is configured to receive working part 16, wherein the opening corresponds to the end of the first stem; see figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gregory in view of Halamoda to include a first support plate and a second support plate. Halamoda discloses that the second support plate (tool guide plate 9) clamps foil 2 against support surface 7 of the first support plate (lower tool 6) in order to perform a piercing operation (see paragraph [0043]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that clamping the material to be perforated locks the material in place and prevents unwanted movement, thus ensuring the material is not ripped or cut during the perforating operation. While female die 20 and movable stripper 18 of Gregory are configured to clamp the material during perforation, these surfaces are comparatively small and do not secure as much material. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit of adding the support plates of Halamoda into the device of Gregory to improve the clamping operation by holding a larger portion of the material in place and thus reduce the chance of ripping the material during perforation.
Regarding claim 14, Gregory as modified discloses the limitations of claim 13 as described in the rejection above.
Halamoda further discloses a second support plate (tool guide plate 9; see figs. 1-2) spaced from the first support plate by a distance configured to retain the fiber preform (a gap is formed between tool guide plate 9 and support surface 7, with foil 2 fixed in the gap; see paragraphs [0036, 0042-0043] and figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gregory in view of Halamoda to include a first support plate and a second support plate. Halamoda discloses that the second support plate (tool guide plate 9) clamps foil 2 against support surface 7 of the first support plate (lower tool 6) in order to perform a piercing operation (see paragraph [0043]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that clamping the material to be perforated locks the material in place and prevents unwanted movement, thus ensuring the material is not ripped or cut during the perforating operation. While female die 20 and movable stripper 18 of Gregory are configured to clamp the material during perforation, these surfaces are comparatively small and do not secure as much material. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit of adding the support plates of Halamoda into the device of Gregory to improve the clamping operation by holding a larger portion of the material in place and thus reduce the chance of ripping the material during perforation.
Regarding claim 15, Gregory as modified discloses the limitations of claim 14 as described in the rejection above.
Gregory as modified further discloses a shaft (plunger 12; see fig. 1) extending from the collet (plunger 12 extends from movable stripper 18 via stem 16; see figs. 1-2); a flange (collar 13; see fig. 1) extending outward from the shaft (collar 13 is pinned to and extends out from plunger 12; see pg. 1, lines 55-59 and fig. 1); and a biasing member (coiled spring 14; see fig. 1) disposed between the flange and the second stem (coiled spring 14 is located between collar 13 and a portion of hollow head 9; see fig. 1), wherein as the plunger assembly displaces from the retracted position towards the extended position, the biasing member compresses (coiled spring 14 is compressed when the plunger assembly moves from the retracted position to the extended position; see pg. 1, line 103-pg. 2, line 2 and fig. 2) and thereby generates a restoring force that acts on the flange and the second stem to bias the plunger assembly towards the retracted position (upon release of pressure, coiled spring 14 exerts a restoring force that returns the plunger assembly to its original position; see pg. 2, lines 13-19 and fig. 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: KR 20150133874 to Yang, drawn to an apparatus for perforating; and KR 101957941 to Kim, drawn to an apparatus for forming a perforated line.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724