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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurer (US 20200086397 A1), and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 203281911 U, hereinafter ‘Zhang’) and Chang et al. (CN 210908163 U, hereinafter ‘Chang’).
Regarding claim 1, Maurer teaches a chuck 1 by means of which workpieces 2 are supported individually for machining by a machine tool (Abstract) and aligned coaxially to a centering axis 4, which serves as a reference for machining the workpiece 2 by the machine tool, having a chuck body 3, having at least four clamping jaws (5, 6, 7, 8) that are radially movably mounted on the chuck body 3 and are each arranged in pairs in an X or Y plane and by means of which the workpiece 2 is held during the machining process to be aligned with respect to the centering axis 4, and having a pull piston 9 that is mounted in or at the chuck body 3 so as to be linearly movable (Fig 3) and which is drivably coupled to one or more of at least four respective clamping jaws (5, 6, 7, 8) (via helical gearing 10, [0030]) such that during the linear movement of the pull piston 9, the at least four clamping jaws (5, 6, 7, 8) are radially fed in the direction of the workpiece 2, moved away from the workpiece, in a synchronous manner ([0029)], wherein the pull piston 9 is arranged coaxially with respect to the centering axis 4 inside the chuck body 3 and is axially actuated by one or more drive means ([0030], for 9 to move linearly there must be a means for driving it).
Maurer does not explicitly disclose that each of the drive means comprises a linearly movable piston rod or threaded spindle, having a longitudinal axis which extends perpendicular to the centering axis; two of the one or more drive means are arranged in parallel to one another, and spaced apart from the centering axis on the outside of the chuck body or inside of the chuck body; and inside the chuck body, a synchronizer ring is rotatably supported, that the synchronizer ring has at least two guide grooves and that a coupling part is mounted to each of the drive means and that a sliding block is formed to each coupling part which positively engages or is inserted into the guide grooves of the synchronizer ring.
However, Zhang teaches the drive means comprises a linearly movable piston rod 1, having a longitudinal axis which extends perpendicular to the centering axis (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maurer to incorporate the drive means as disclosed by Zhang in order to utilize a hydraulic drive system and better clamp the workpiece and prevent it from shifting (Zhang, [0008]).
In addition, Chang teaches two drive means 201,202 arranged in parallel to one another (Figs 1-3), and spaced apart from the centering axis inside the chuck body (Figs 1-3); and inside the chuck body, a synchronizer ring 3 is rotatably supported, that the synchronizer ring has at least two guide grooves (arcuate holes in 301) and that a coupling part is mounted to each of the drive means and that a sliding block is formed to each coupling part which positively engages or is inserted into the guide grooves of the synchronizer ring 3 ([0050], shown in the annotated figure below).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maurer as previously modified to utilize multiple hydraulic pistons and the synchronizer ring as disclosed by Chang to drive the device in order to provide accuracy and repeatability to the synchronization of the driving of the clamping mechanism (Chang, [0006]).
Regarding claim 2, Maurer as previously modified teaches the chuck according to claim 1. Maurer also teaches that the chuck body 3 comprises a construction unit comprising at least four sliding blocks 22, with each of the at least four sliding block 22 being assigned to, and coupled with, one of the at least four clamping jaws (5, 6, 7, 8), and a rocker 11 ([0036]), which is supported at the chuck body 3 and pivotable about a bearing pin 13 and by means of which two of the at least four sliding blocks 22 are drivingly coupled with one another (Figs 4A-4B).
Regarding claim 5, Maurer as previously modified teaches the chuck according to claim 2. Maurer also teaches each of the sliding blocks 22 is drivingly coupled to one of the clamping jaws (5, 6, 7, 8) ([0036]).
Regarding claim 8, Maurer teaches a chuck 1 by means of which workpieces 2 are supported individually for machining by a machine tool (Abstract) and aligned coaxially to a centering axis 4, which serves as a reference for machining the workpiece 2 by the machine tool, having a chuck body 3, having at least four clamping jaws (5, 6, 7, 8) that are radially movably mounted on the chuck body 3 and are each arranged in pairs in an X or Y plane and by means of which the workpiece 2 is held during the machining process to be aligned with respect to the centering axis 4, and having a pull piston 9 that is mounted in or at the chuck body 3 so as to be linearly movable (Fig 3) and which is drivably coupled to one or more of at least four respective clamping jaws (5, 6, 7, 8) (via helical gearing 10, [0030]) such that during the linear movement of the pull piston 9, the at least four clamping jaws (5, 6, 7, 8) are radially fed in the direction of the workpiece 2, moved away from the workpiece, in a synchronous manner ([0029)], wherein the pull piston 9 is arranged coaxially with respect to the centering axis 4 inside the chuck body 3 and is axially actuated by one or more drive means ([0030], for 9 to move linearly there must be a means for driving it).
Maurer does not explicitly disclose that each of the drive means comprises a linearly movable piston rod or threaded spindle, having a longitudinal axis which extends perpendicular to the centering axis; and inside the chuck body, a synchronizer ring is rotatably supported, that the synchronizer ring has at least two guide grooves and that a coupling part is mounted to each of the drive means and that a sliding block is formed to each coupling part which positively engages or is inserted into the guide grooves of the synchronizer ring.
However, Zhang teaches the drive means comprises a linearly movable piston rod 1, having a longitudinal axis which extends perpendicular to the centering axis (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maurer to incorporate the drive means as disclosed by Zhang in order to utilize a hydraulic drive system and better clamp the workpiece and prevent it from shifting (Zhang, [0008]).
In addition, Chang teaches two drive means 201,202 arranged in parallel to one another (Figs 1-3), and spaced apart from the centering axis inside the chuck body (Figs 1-3); and inside the chuck body, a synchronizer ring 3 is rotatably supported, that the synchronizer ring has at least two guide grooves (arcuate holes in 301) and that a coupling part is mounted to each of the drive means and that a sliding block is formed to each coupling part which positively engages or is inserted into the guide grooves of the synchronizer ring 3 ([0050], shown in the annotated figure below).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maurer as previously modified to utilize multiple hydraulic pistons and the synchronizer ring as disclosed by Chang to drive the device in order to provide accuracy and repeatability to the synchronization of the driving of the clamping mechanism (Chang, [0006]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that neither the teachings of Zhang nor Chang applied to the previous office action are able to be combined with Maurer to arrive at Applicant’s claimed invention. These arguments are respectfully traversed.
First, Applicant argues on pages 6-8 of the remarks that Zhang utilizes the piston to engage a pull rod and move it downward which causes a rocker lever to move clamping jaws, as opposed to the mechanism of the present invention which uses a drive means to pull a piston down and engage wedge hook frames to move the clamping jaws. However, the teachings of Zhang are only used to teach the drive means of a linear piston rode perpendicular to the centering axis, as described in paragraphs 11-12 of the previous office action and again in paragraphs 6-7 above.
Additionally, Applicant argues on pages 8-10 that Chang does not teach a synchronizer ring that is equivalent to the synchronizer ring of the present invention. While the synchronizer disk (Chang, 3) is separated into two components as pointed out on page 9 of the remarks, there is no indication in Chang that these two components of the synchronizer disk operate independently of one another. Even if the two components of the synchronizer disk did operate separately, Applicant’s argument that Chang fails to show the feature of “asymmetric movement of neighboring clamping jaws, even though the clamping jaws are actuated synchronously” are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, the rejections are maintained.
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 ERIC DANIEL WHITMIRE whose telephone number is (703)756-4729. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 4 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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/ERIC DANIEL WHITMIRE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722