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, 3-4, 6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohn (US 2,993,395, previously presented) in view of Meinel (US 5,769,369, previously presented) and Okubu (US 4,461,463, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 1, Bohn teaches an arrangement (Fig. 1) comprising:
a fixture device (Fig. 2) for removably holding components ([Col. 1, Line 7-10]), said fixture device comprising;
a holding device (Ref. 14 & 26, Fig. 1) intended to removably holding components ([Col.2, Line 35-39]), said holding device comprising a first (Ref. 14, Fig. 1) and a second holding element (Ref. 24&26, Fig. 1);
a ball (Ref. 12, Fig. 1) attached to the holding device (Fig. 1);
a socket (Ref. 28, 32, & 36, Fig. 1-2) comprising a first side (See annotated Fig. 1 below) configured to receive at least part of the ball (Fig. 1) such that the ball can slide in relation to the socket (Fig. 1, [Col. 3, Line 31-38]); and
a magnet (Ref. 40, Fig. 1-2);
wherein the ball comprises ferromagnetic material ([Col. 2, Line 22-24] describes the ball as steel which is made of iron that is a ferromagnetic material),
wherein at least a section of the ball is made of a magnetic material ([Col. 2, Line 22-24] describes the ball as steel which is a magnetic material) such that the ball is maintained in a selected position in relation to the socket by the magnet (Fig. 1, [Col.3, line 27-30]), a support (Ref. 10, Fig. 1) comprising a magnetic material ([Col. 2, Line 16-17] describes a the surface being steel or iron) wherein the fixture device is arranged to be removably attached to the support by a magnetic force (Fig. 1, [Col.3, line 39-40]) and wherein the socket comprises a second side (See annotated Fig. 1 below) attached to the support (Fig. 1) by said magnet and wherein said socket is movable along the surface of the support ([Col. 2, Line 22-24 & Col.3, line 27-30]), and
wherein the first holding element (14) comprises a first contact surface (See annotated Fig. 1 below) and the second holding element (26) comprises a second contact surface (Ref. 24, Fig. 1) and wherein said holding device is arranged to move between an open position (Fig. 1) and the holding position ([col. 2, Line 38-39] describes the holding position fastened to workpiece in a predetermined position) and wherein the first and second contact surface are arranged parallel to each other when the holding device is moving between the open position (Fig. 1 shows the surfaces are parallel in a vertical direction) and the holding position ([Col. 2, Lines 38-39]), and the first contact surface and the second contact surface are configured to be in contact with a component to be held by the holding device ([Col. 2, Lines 38-39]),
wherein, while magnetically engaged, the ball (12) remains movable relative to the socket (28,32,&36) to allow for selection and maintenance of the selected position of the ball relative to the socket by frictional resistance generated by magnetic attraction between the ball and the socket ([Col. 3, Lines 31-38] recites the ball is capable of maybe movable relative to the socket to position the work holder while providing some frictional resistance by the ball and socket due to the magnetic attraction, examiner interprets the limitation as intended use),
wherein, while magnetically engaged, the socket (28,32,&36) remains movable relative to the support (10) to allow for selection and maintenance of a position of the socket relative to the support by frictional resistance generated by magnetic attraction between the socket and the support ([Col. 3, Lines 31-38] recites repositioning the workpiece while magnetically engaged by decreasing the magnetic holding force of the magnetic field and would be capable of moving the socket relative to the support, examiner interprets the limitation as intended use), and
wherein the support (10) is a flat plate (Fig. 1 shows a flat surface, [Col. 2, Lines 16-19] describes a platform or bed of a drill press that is a flat plate).
Bohn fails to explicitly teach a holding device comprising a biasing member arranged to force at least one of the two holding elements into a holding position. Meinel teaches a fixture device with a holding element connected to a ball and socket and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of fixture device. Meinel teaches a holding device (Ref. 14&16, Fig. 3) intended to removably holding components (Ref. 12, Fig. 3), said holding device comprising a first holding element (Ref. 14, Fig. 3) and a second holding element (Ref. 16, Fig. 3) and a biasing member (Ref. 20, Fig. 3) arranged to force at least one of the two holding elements into a holding position (Fig. 3, [Col. 3, Lines 32-41]), wherein the first holding element (14) comprises a first contact surface (See annotated Fig. 6 below, side surface facing second surface) and the second holding element (16) comprises a second contact surface (See annotated Fig. 6 below, side surface facing second surface) and wherein said holding device is arranged to move between an open position and the holding position and wherein the first and second contact surface are arranged parallel to each other when the holding device is moving between the open position and the holding position (Fig. 3, [Col. 3, Line 28‐42] describe the spring biasing the holding elements in a holding position an open position when urging each holding element away from one another). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first and second holding elements, as taught by Bohn, with a biasing member arranged to force at least one of the two holding elements into a holding position, as taught by Meinel, to allow the jaws of the holding device to be automatically urged towards one another for releasably holding the device therebetween ([Col. 3, Lines 1‐6]).
Bohn further teaches wherein the ball comprises ferromagnetic material ([Col. 2, Line 22-24] describes the ball as steel which is a magnetic material). Bohn as modified fails to teach wherein the magnet comprises a permanent magnet. Okubo teaches a fixture device with a holding element connected to a ball and socket and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of fixture device. Okubo teaches a permanent magnet (Ref. 17, Fig. 1) to that generates a magnetic field (Ref. 24, fig. 1) hold a ball (Ref. 21, Fig. 1) in axial position and hold a support (Ref. 14, fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the magnet, as taught by Bohn as modified, with a permanent magnet, as taught by Okubo, as a simple substitution of a known element to produce the result of holding a ball in a socket at a particular angle and attaching a socket to a support.
PNG
media_image1.png
577
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1036
799
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Bohn as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Bohn further teaches wherein the socket is at least partly enclosing the ball (fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Bohn as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Bohn further teaches wherein the socket comprises a friction member (Ref. 30, Fig. 1, [Col. 3, Line 65-68] describes the member (30) to have frictional resistance against rotational torque).
Regarding Claim 6, Bohn as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Bohn further teaches wherein the fixture device (Fig. 2) is arranged for being in a tilted position ([Col. 1, Line 7-10] describes the work can be positioned into any desired manner and magnetically locked into place including a tilted position). Bohn as modified fails to explicitly teach the holding device comprises a protruding member for being in contact with the support and for aligning the fixture device with the support when in said tilted position. Meinel further teaches wherein a holding device (14&16) comprises a protruding member (Fig. 6 annotated below) for being in contact with the support and for aligning the fixture device with the support when in said tilted position (Examiner notes, as intended use, the protruding member would be capable of contacting the support when in a tilted position).
PNG
media_image3.png
487
828
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Bohn as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Bohn further teaches wherein the holding device (14&26) comprises a rod (Ref. 18, Fig. 1) connecting the ball (12) and at least one of the first and second holding elements of the holding device (Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 27-28]). Further, given the teaching of the biasing member of Meinel in claim 1, and Meinel further teaches wherein the holding device comprises a rod connecting the ball (Ref. 24&26, Fig. 3) and at least one of the first and second holding elements of the holding device (Fig. 3), wherein at least part of said biasing member is arranged encircling at least part of the rod (Fig. 6 shows at least an end of the biasing member arranged to encircle at least a part of the rod). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the rod and holding device, as taught by Bohn, with a biasing member arranged encircling at least part of the rod, as taught by Meinel, to allow the jaws of the holding device to be automatically urged towards one another for releasably holding the device therebetween ([Col. 3, Lines 1‐6]).
Regarding Claim 10, Bohn as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Bohn further teaches wherein the socket comprises a first section (Ref. 32, Fig. 1) and a second section (Ref. 28, fig. 2), wherein the first section comprises the magnet (Fig. 1) and the second section is arranged to at least partly enclose the ball (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Bohn as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Bohn further teaches wherein the socket comprises a spacer (Ref. 34, Fig. 1) for creating a distance (Ref. A, Fig. 1) between the socket and the support when said socket is fastened to said support ([Col. 3, Line 53-56]).
Regarding Claim 12, Bohn as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Bohn further teaches wherein the support comprises a ferromagnetic material ([Col. 2, Line 16-17] describes a the surface being steel or iron that is a ferromagnetic material).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohn in view of Meinel and Okubu as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Vogel (US 2019/0178437).
Regarding Claim 7, Bohn as modified teaches the limitations of claim 6, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein at least part of the holding device comprises a ferromagnetic material such that the magnet in the socket magnetizes the holding device and the protruding member of the holding device such that the holding device is intended to be removably attached to the support by the magnet when the fixture device is in said tilted position. Vogel teaches a fixture device with a holding element connected to a ball and socket and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of fixture device. Vogel further teaches a spherical joint (Ref. 3, Fig. 1a) that is attached to a holding device (Ref. 4, Fig. 1a) to allow the holding device to move freely ([0038]); the holding device comprises a ferromagnetic material ([0035]) thereby magnetizing the holding device ([0010]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the holding device, as taught by Bohn as modified, to be a ferromagnetic material, as taught by Vogel, to easily attach and detach a component to the holding device ([0035]). Further given the teachings of Vogel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the magnet in the socket magnetizes the holding device and the protruding member of the holding device such that the holding device is intended to be removably attached to the support by the magnet when the fixture device is in said tilted position because it is old and well known in the art that having a magnet near a ferromagnetic holding device it will magnetize and allow the holding device to hold a workpiece or to supports for stability, as required by claim 7.
Regarding Claim 8, Bohn as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Bohn teaches the socket is attracted to a ferromagnetic material support (Fig. 1, [Col.3, line 39-40]) by the magnet (40). Bohn as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the holding device comprises a top section comprising a ferromagnetic material and arranged to be received by the socket, and wherein the socket is further arranged to receive the top section by the magnet. Vogel teaches a fixture device with a holding element connected to a ball and socket and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of fixture device. Vogel further teaches a spherical joint (Ref. 3, Fig. 1a) that is attached to a holding device (Ref. 4, Fig. 1a) and the holding device comprises a ferromagnetic material ([0035]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify a top section of the holding device, as taught by Bohn as modified, to be a ferromagnetic material, as taught by Vogel, to easily attach and detach a component to the holding device ([0035]). Further, given the teachings of Bohn that the socket is attached to a ferromagnetic material using a magnet and Vogel teaching the holding device is a ferromagnetic material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a ferromagnetic top section capable of receiving the socket by using a magnet because it is old and well known in the art that a magnet is attracted to ferromagnetic materials.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohn in view of Meinel and Okubu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Richards (US 2018/0050407).
Regarding Claim 13, Bohn as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach multiple fixture device arranged on the surface of the support wherein each one of the more than one fixture device is configured to hold at least one component. Richards teaches a fixture device with a holding element connected a support magnetically and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of fixture devices. Richard teaches more than one fixture device (Ref. 104, Fig. 1) arranged on the surface of the support (Ref. 102, Fig. 1), wherein each one of the more than one fixture device is configured to hold at least one component (Fig. 1&5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the fixture device, as taught by Bohn as modified, to have more than one fixture device arranged on the surface of the support, as taught by Richard, by duplication of parts (MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.) to hold and work on larger or multiple components and place the component in a desired position according to the size, shape, and weight of the object ([0022]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 January, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, applicant’s amendments to the claim change the scope of the claim and thereby necessitating reinterpretation of the art. In response to applicant's argument that the prior art fails to teach the ball and socket remains movable while magnetically engaged have been fully considered and is not persuasive, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, examiner has applied Bohn to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Bohn further teaches wherein, while magnetically engaged, the ball (12) remains movable relative to the socket (28,32,&36) to allow for selection and maintenance of the selected position of the ball relative to the socket by frictional resistance generated by magnetic attraction between the ball and the socket ([Col. 3, Lines 31-38] recites the ball is capable of maybe movable relative to the socket to position the work holder while providing some frictional resistance by the ball and socket due to the magnetic attraction, examiner interprets the limitation as intended use), wherein, while magnetically engaged, the socket (28,32,&36) remains movable relative to the support (10) to allow for selection and maintenance of a position of the socket relative to the support by frictional resistance generated by magnetic attraction between the socket and the support ([Col. 3, Lines 31-38] recites repositioning the workpiece while magnetically engaged by decreasing the magnetic holding force of the magnetic field and would be capable of moving the socket relative to the support, examiner interprets the limitation as intended use).
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 DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights