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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1-14 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the securing structure is configured so as to engage into multiple through-openings (5).” It is unclear how a securing structure can engage multiple through-openings. Rather, it would seem that a securing structure could only engage one opening at a time. Additionally, the “securing structure” is not numbered. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second studs" in line 4 and “the first studs” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Rather, the claim only provides antecedent basis for “one or more second studs” and “one or more first studs.” Applicant should amend the claim to be consistent with the recited limitations.
Claims 7 and 8 also recite “the second studs” and are rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of Claim 6.
The remaining dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 7,861,860 to Bettenhausen et al. (Bettenhausen).
PNG
media_image1.png
565
659
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
473
491
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Bettenhausen discloses a workpiece support comprising a support plate (See Annotated Fig. A) having a plurality of through-openings (See Annotated Fig. A) through a contact surface (See Annotated Fig. A) and a single-piece holder module (See Annotated Fig. A) that can be mounted on the contact surface, the module having a plurality of workpiece holders (See Annotated Fig. A) on its top side and a securing structure (See Annotated Fig. B) on its underside, wherein a base surface (See Annotated Fig. B) of the mounted holder module extends over (See Annotated Fig. A) multiple through-openings (See Annotated Fig. A) out of the plurality of through-openings, and wherein the securing structure (See Annotated Fig. A) is configured so as to engage into multiple through-openings (See Annotated Fig. A), so that the holder module (See Annotated Fig. A) is detachably secured to the contact surface.
Regarding Claim 2: Bettenhausen discloses a workpiece support according to claim 1, wherein the securing structure (See Annotated Fig. A) and the through-openings (See Annotated Fig. A) are configured so that they engage into one another with . . . shape fit when the holder module (See Annotated Fig. A) is releasably fixed in place on the contact surface (See Annotated Fig. A). Note: that the securing structure and the through openings of Bettenhausen have similar shapes such that they fit with one another.
Regarding Claim 3: Bettenhausen discloses a workpiece support according to claim 1 wherein the securing structure (See Annotated Fig. B) is configured so that the securing structure engages into . . . only a part of the through-openings (See Annotated Fig. A) that lie below the base surface of the mounted holder module (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 4: Bettenhausen discloses a workpiece support according to claim 1, wherein the holder module (See Annotated Fig. A) has a base plate (See Annotated Fig. A) from which the plurality of workpiece holders (See Annotated Fig. A) project upward on the top side, and on the underside of which the securing structure (See Annotated Fig. B) is arranged with a plurality of studs (See Annotated Fig. B).
Regarding Claim 5: Bettenhausen discloses a workpiece support according to claim 4, wherein two adjacent studs (See Annotated Fig. A) of the mounted holder module engage into two through-openings, between which one or more through-openings are arranged into which no studs (See Annotated Fig. A) engage. (Note that in Annotated Fig. A there are openings below the base plate that are not engaged with studs.)
Regarding Claim 6: Bettenhausen discloses a workpiece support according to claim 4, wherein the plurality of studs (See Annotated Fig. B) comprise comprises one or more first studs (See Col. 3, lines 64-66 discussing studs having shanks with grooves to receive snap rings) and one or more second studs (See Col. 3, line 66 to Col. 4, line 1, discussing studs having external threading to receive an internally threaded nut) and wherein the second studs are configured for forming a firmer connection (the different types of stud mounting methods shows that the studs are configured with different connections with varying degrees of firmness with those connections) with the through-openings than the first studs.
Regarding Claim 7: Bettenhausen discloses a workpiece support according to claim 6, wherein the second studs (See Annotated Fig. B) have radial projections (See Annotated Fig. B), which are configured, in particular, as . . . engagement projections.
Regarding Claim 8: Bettenhausen discloses a workpiece support according to claim 6, wherein the second studs (See Annotated Fig. B) are arranged in corner regions (See Annotated Fig. A) of the holder module.
Regarding Claim 9: Bettenhausen discloses a workpiece support according to claim 1, wherein the through-openings (See Annotated Fig. A) are arranged in a matrix shape (See generally Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 10: Bettenhausen discloses a workpiece support according to claim 4, wherein . . . the workpiece holders (See Annotated Fig. A) are arranged in a matrix shape (See generally Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 11: Bettenhausen discloses a workpiece support according to claim 1, wherein the positions of the workpiece holders (See Annotated Fig. A) correspond to the positions of the through-openings (See Annotated Fig. A) under the base surface (See Annotated Fig. B) of the mounted holder module (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 12: Bettenhausen discloses a workpiece support according to claim 1, wherein each of the workpiece holders (See Annotated Fig. A) comprises an element projecting upward (See Annotated Fig. A) in the vertical direction--.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bettenhausen.
Regarding Claims 13 and 14: Bettenhausen discloses a holder module (See Annotated Fig. A) and a support plate (See Annotated Fig. A) formed of some rigid material but does not specifically disclose that material being plastic for the holder module or plastic or metal for the support plate.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and a time before the effective date of invention to make the holder module out of plastic and the support plate being metallic. Here’s why:
Courts have held that it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.1 Here, the intended use of the holder module is to support a workpiece and the intended use of the support plate is to support the holder modules. Holder modules of plastic would be durable enough to support workpieces and provide enough give to prevent damaging workpieces. Support plates being metallic would be durable enough to support holder modules and durable enough for the repeated insertion and removable of securing structures from the support plate. In addition, plastic and metallic material are well-known and commercially available at a time before the effective date of the invention. Moreover, it is well-within the level of skill in the art to utilize the known and commercially available materials to produce a part suited for the intended use thereof. The use of these materials would not produce any new unexpected results. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person skilled in the art at a time before the effective date of the instant invention to choose plastic to construct holder modules and metal to construct the support plate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the references used in this rejection and those cited in the PTO-892, the following references are very relevant to the claimed invention: US 5827487 and EP 2952439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERET C MCNICHOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 - 5:00 (Eastern).
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
ERET C. MCNICHOLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/ERET C MCNICHOLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
1 See MPEP 2144.07.
Prosecution Insights