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 Species B (Figure 5A) encompassed by claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 07/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not directed to the invention of elected Figure 5A and claims 1-20. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In specification, paragraph [0001], please insert the US Patent number corresponding to the parent application number 18/977,292.
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 5 and 18 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.
The term “generally” in claims 5 and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to differentiate between a circular shape and a generally circular shape without having any guidance as to what variations or deviations are acceptable. Similarly, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to differentiate between an elliptical shape a generally elliptical shape.
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)(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) 1-6, 8-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vaes (US 7,900,335).
As applied to claims 1 and 13, Vaes teaches a system for manufacturing a part, the system comprising:
a machining apparatus (CNC milling machine 120, abstract; col. 3, lines 34-56, Fig. 12) configured to machine a sheet of material (sheet 122 over table 11, Fig. 13); and
a controller (CNC milling machine is computer numerical controlled) configured to generate commands to control the machining apparatus, the controller being configured to:
cause the machining apparatus to form a first segment and a second segment from the material (plurality of segments 102, Figs. 13-14, see Annotated Figures below); cause the machining apparatus to form a first shape in an end of the first segment, the first shape including two curved surfaces; cause the machining apparatus to form a second shape in an end of the second segment, wherein the first shape of the first segment and the second shape of the second segment are complementary to one another (female end 106 and male end 104); cause the machining apparatus to form a first opening in the end of the first segment; and cause the machining apparatus to form a second opening in the end of the second segment (see Annotated Figures below).
PNG
media_image1.png
300
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
307
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As applied to claim 2, Vaes teaches the invention cited including the controller being further configured to cause the machining apparatus to remove material (by CNC milling machine, Figs. 12-14) to form a plurality of layers that, when connected, form the part (emphasis added text is an intended use limitation but depicted in Figs. 16 and 18).
As applied to claims 3-5 and 17-18, Vaes teaches the invention cited including the controller being further configured to cause the machining apparatus to form a first hole at an end of the first opening and a second hole at an end of the second opening, the first hole intersecting the first opening and the second hole intersecting the second opening and the first hole and the second hole having generally circular shapes (see Annotated Figures above).
As applied to claim 6, Vaes teaches the invention cited including wherein the controller being further configured to form the first opening on an edge of the end of the first segment (end 106) and form the second opening on an edge of the end of the second segment (end 104, see the edges at Annotated Figures above).
As applied to claim 8, Vaes teaches the invention cited including wherein the first segment and the second segment are segments of a single layer (sheet layer 122, Fig. 14).
As applied to claims 9-10 and 19-20, Vaes teaches the invention cited including wherein the first shape includes a recess (recess shown in Annotated Figure above) and the second shape includes a protrusion (protrusion shown in Annotated Figure above), the recess configured to receive the protrusion (see Figs 16 and 18).
As applied to claims 11-12 and 14-15, Vaes teaches the invention cited including wherein the second shape includes a second pair of curved surfaces (see Annotated Figures above) that are configured to contact the first pair of curved surfaces (see Figs. 16 and 18).
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-15 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Olsen (US 5,505,365).
As applied to claims 1 and 13, Olsen teaches a system for manufacturing a part, the system comprising:
a machining apparatus (numerically controlled/CNC controlled laser cutting machine, abstract; col. 1, lines 6-17; col. 3, lines 38-47) configured to machine a sheet of material (sheets 51 and 52 are made of a material); and
a controller (numerically controlled/CNC controlled) configured to generate commands to control the machining apparatus, the controller being configured to:
cause the machining apparatus to form a first segment and a second segment from the material; cause the machining apparatus to form a first shape in an end of the first segment, the first shape including two curved surfaces; cause the machining apparatus to form a second shape in an end of the second segment, wherein the first shape of the first segment and the second shape of the second segment are complementary to one another; cause the machining apparatus to form a first opening in the end of the first segment; and cause the machining apparatus to form a second opening in the end of the second segment (see Annotated Figures 4A(1) and 4A(2) below).
PNG
media_image3.png
230
327
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
248
389
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As applied to claim 2, Olsen teaches the invention cited including the controller being further configured to cause the machining apparatus to remove material (by CNC laser cutting) to form a plurality of layers that, when connected, form the part (emphasis added text is an intended use limitation but depicted in Figs. 4B and 4C).
As applied to claim 6, Olsen teaches the invention cited including wherein the controller being further configured to form the first opening on an edge of the end of the first segment and form the second opening on an edge of the end of the second segment (see the edges at Annotated Figures 4A(1) and 4A(2) above).
As applied to claim 7, Olsen teaches the invention cited including wherein the controller being further configured to form the first opening on an edge of the end of the first segment (see Fig 4A(1) above) and form the second opening on an edge of the end of the second segment (see Fig. 4A(2) above), the first opening and the second opening forming a butt joint (emphasis added text is an intended use limitation but depicted in Fig. 4C showing portions of 1st and 2nd openings at the joint line).
As applied to claim 8, Olsen teaches the invention cited including wherein the first segment and the second segment are segments of a single layer (see Fig. 4C showing 1st and 2nd segments are on a single/common layer/plane).
As applied to claims 9-10 and 19-20, Olsen teaches the invention cited including wherein the first shape includes a recess (recess shown in Fig. 4A(1) above) and the second shape includes a protrusion (protrusion shown in Fig. 4A(2) above), the recess configured to receive the protrusion (see Figs 4B and 4C).
As applied to claims 11-12 and 14-15, Olsen teaches the invention cited including wherein the second shape includes a second pair of curved surfaces (see Fig. 4A(2) above) that are configured to contact the first pair of curved surfaces (see Fig. 4A(1) and Figs. 4B, 4C).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,599,952. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the narrower claim 1-12 and 14 of ‘952 Patent anticipates the instant claims 1.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5-7 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,194,526. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the narrower claim 1-2, 5-7 and 10 of ‘526 Patent anticipates the instant claims 1-20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Titz et al. (US 20070170300A1) teaches a method and system for producing improved joint to join material webs (11, 21) in the area of cut edges (abstract, Fig. 7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 07/22/2026
Prosecution Insights