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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 3-7 are examined in the office action of which all claims were amended in Applicant’s reply filed 13 JULY 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: Claim 1 was amended to remove steps “step S5”, “step S6” and “step S7”. As these step names are removed, the method steps associated with each step should all be part of the same paragraph or intended (line indent) under each step so that the method steps associated with each step can be distinguished easily.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 3-7 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 the limitation "the temperature" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further it is unclear if it is to be kept at a particular temperature within the range that it is heated to or whether it can be kept in any temperature within the range. Claims 3-7 are dependents of claim 1, do not resolve the issue thereby also indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the curve construction command in the UG software” in lines 29-30 (emphasis added for the limitations). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claims 1-7, Claim 1 recites the limitations “the main curve using the curve construction command in the UG software”. It is unclear what is meant by “UG software” as neither the specification nor the claims define the UG software and its curve construction command. Claims 3-7 are dependents of claim 1, do not resolve the issue thereby also indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “performing shot peening and spraying plastics treatments”. However, the claim does not specify what material these steps are performed on thereby making it unclear whether the steps are performed on the plow point. Claims 3-7 are dependents of claim 1, do not resolve the issue thereby also indefinite.
Regarding claim 5, instant claim recites the limitation “performing early stage preparation of EDEM discrete element simulation”. It is unclear what is meant by “EDEM discrete element simulation” as neither the specification nor the claims define or detail the term.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Instant claims, namely claim 1, requires method for manufacturing a reversible plow point wherein the method comprises: a) preparing a 34MnCrB5-M steel having specific composition, b) melting, casting into ingot with dimensions of φ 100 mm×500 mm, heating to 920-960°C, holding for 1-2 hours and forming a rod with dimensions of φ 60 mm×1380 mm with one initial rolling and two finishing rolling, and then cutting into a blank of length 340-360mm, c) performing die forging-annealing treatment at specific temperature and duration and welding an alloy layer, d) performing plowing tip machining with specific calculations and modeling of certain parameters of interest, and e) performing plow point carburizing-quenching-tempering treatment at specific temperature and duration followed by shot peeing and spraying plastics.
The closest prior art CN 112935728 A of Yang and its English machine translation (CN’728) teaches “the production processing field of agricultural machinery, specifically to a manufacturing method of low-resistance wearable plough shovel tip” (technical field). “A manufacturing method of low-resistance wearable plough shovel tip, wherein the front and back of the tip of the plough shovel tip are processed with grooves; each groove direction is regularly distributed at the front and back of the tip of the plough shovel in a certain angle with the parallel side direction of the two sides of the shovel tip; coating wear-resistant coating in the groove; the wearable coating is high out of the plough shovel tip base plane; the base surface of the two sides of the head of the shovel tip is directly coated with a wear-resistant coating; and there is no need to open the groove” (claim 1) and “The manufacturing method of low-resistance wearable plough shovel tip according to claim 1, wherein the plough shovel tip base alloy material is 65Mn or 60Si2Mn, the stack wearable coating alloy material is Ni60, Fe60; NiWC or FeWC, or the wearable coating alloy material is wearable alloy welding rod D708, D998 or D999, the stacking mode is argon arc, plasma, laser, flame or electric arc, the production process is as follows: die forging blank, surface shot blasting, preheating, overlaying welding, slow cooling after welding, heat treatment, paint spraying, packaging and warehousing” (claim 7). The prior art also teaches [0042]-[0054] “(1) 60Si2Mn blanking, blanking into 360mm * 100mm * 22mm rectangular block; (2) forging and forming; the front of the head of the shovel tip is provided with 5 grooves uniformly distributed in parallel; the back of the head of the shovel tip is provided with 6 grooves uniformly distributed in parallel; the front groove and the back groove of the shovel tip are staggered; the effect is: ensuring that the plough shovel tip base is fully located at the reinforcing protection of the wearable layer; it is good for lifting the wear uniformity of the plough shovel tip and preventing the local abrasion phenomenon.” “(3) surface shot blasting; (4) preheating; heating the shovel tip to 500 degrees centigrade; keeping the temperature for 30 minutes; (5) argon-arc welding and coating wear-resistant coating in the groove, and the wear-resistant coating is protruded from the surface of the shovel tip base body 3 ~ 4 mm, see FIG. 4 (b);” “(6) slow cooling; putting the shovel tip of the stack after wearable coating into more than 550 degrees centigrade (this embodiment is 600 degrees centigrade) oven; slowly cooling to room temperature along with the oven;” “(7) heat treatment, then heating the shovel tip to 820 ° C, keeping the temperature for 30 minutes, oil quenching to room temperature, keeping the temperature for 2 hours at 460 ° C for tempering, cleaning, painting, packaging and warehousing, finishing the production.” However, the prior art does not teach the specific composition and the method following specific order with adherence to specific parameters as claimed in the instant claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 JULY 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that Applicant argues that the UG software and EDEM are well known in the art and cited search engines such as Baidu in support. In response: As noted in the attached search notes, the term “UG software” and “EDEM” can refer to many items. For example, there are many items with the names UG software and EDEM, and the latter can also refer to a popular rap music artist from Ghana. Moreover, the software does not recite any version and it is unclear if the functionality recited in the claim would be specific to one version or would be present in all of the versions of the software.
If the Applicant is contending these are trademarks, please note that would result in the claims being indefinite. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name.
The presence of a trademark or trade name in a claim is not, per se, improper under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, but the claim should be carefully analyzed to determine how the mark or name is used in the claim. It is important to recognize that a trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and is not the name of the goods themselves. Thus a trademark or trade name does not define or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. See definitions of trademark and trade name in MPEP § 608.01(v).
If the trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). See also Eli Lilly & Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 837 Fed. Appx. 780, 784-85, 2020 USPQ2d 11531 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ("Following Patent Office procedure, the Examiner in this case rejected the claims of the '821 application as indefinite because they improperly used the trade name 'ALIMTA.' In response to the rejection, Lilly canceled its claims reciting the trade name and pursued claims using the generic name for the same substance, which mooted the rejection. Additionally, as the district court observed, the Examiner 'explicitly noted that pemetrexed disodium was 'also known by the trade name ALIMTA' ' in the contemporaneous obviousness rejection."). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to describe any particular material or product. In fact, the value of a trademark would be lost to the extent that it became the generic name of a product, rather than used as an identification of a source or origin of a product. Thus, the use of a trademark or trade name in a claim to describe a material or product would not only render a claim indefinite, but would also constitute an improper use of the trademark or trade name. If the applicant responds to such a rejection by replacing the trademark or trade name with a generic term, the examiner should determine whether there is sufficient support in the application for use of a generic term. See MPEP § 2163, subsection II.A.3(b). If a trademark or trade name appears in a claim and is not intended as a limitation in the claim, the question of why it is in the claim should be addressed. If its presence in the claim causes confusion as to the scope of the claim, then the claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP § 2173.05 (u).
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 JOPHY S. KOSHY whose telephone number is (571)272-0030. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM- 5:00 PM.
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, KEITH HENDRICKS can be reached at (571)272-1401. 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.
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights