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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/22/ and 12/22/23 were filed and the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the German Publication (DE 102017213717A) (See IDS).
RE claim 1, the German Publication (DE 102017213717A) discloses a clamp configured for attachment to a drilling tool of a robotic drill, the clamp comprising:
an attachment portion (see Figs. 1 and 2) configured for attachment to the drilling tool; a frame (2) linearly moveable relative to the attachment portion along a central axis of the clamp concentric with a drilling direction of the drilling tool; an actuation mechanism comprising a servo motor (19) (see Exhibit A) (see para [0026] of translation) configured to drive linear movement of the frame (2) relative to the drilling tool; a workpiece contacting portion at a distal end of the frame, comprising a surface (13, 14, and 15) for contacting a surface of a workpiece to be drilled and an aperture (see Figs. 1 and 2) allowing for passage of a drill bit of the drilling tool through to the workpiece surface; and a force sensor (6) (see Fig. 2 and para [0026] and [0029]) arranged to measure a force acting on the workpiece contacting portion in the drilling direction.
Exhibit A
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
RE claim 3, Figs. 1 and 2 of the German Publication (DE 102017213717A) show the frame has a pair of arms (4, 4) extending in the drilling direction on either side of the central axis and a distal end piece extending between the pair of arms.
RE claim 4, the German Publication (DE 102017213717A) substantially show that the arms (4, 4) and end piece are of unitary construction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the German Publication (DE 102017213717A) (see IDS) in view of Weigel (US 2010/0170100).
The German Publication (DE 102017213717A), as presented above, does not specifically teach that the workpiece contacting portion has a non-slip surface for contacting the workpiece surface. However, Fig. 3A of Weigel (US 2010/0170100) teaches a tool plate and a friction pad (366) provided on the plate on the plate 304).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a non-slip surface or a friction surface on the workpiece contacting portion (13, 14, and 15) of the German Publication (DE 102017213717A) as taught by Weigel (US 2010/0170100) to prevent from slipping off from the workpiece.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7-15 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL T CHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6922. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-4:30 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, Gene Crawford can be reached on (571) 272-6911. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/PAUL T CHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Specification
The title of the invention (“Articulated Clutch”) is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 12-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
There is no antecedent basis for “the second gripping portion” as recited in claims 12, 13, and 14. Note that the claims 12 and 13 depend on claim 10, but claim 10 recites only “a first ripping portion.”
Claims 2-10 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MacKay Sim (8,172,289) (See IDS).
MacKay Sim (8,172,289) discloses a lifting clutch device for lifting a concrete component, the clutch (see Exhibit A) comprising: a toroidal connector (115) (see Fig. 4A); a latch (115) movable relative to the toroidal connector from a disengaged condition to an engaged condition (See Figs. 4A-4C); and a coupler (101) configured to couple the toroidal connector to a lifting apparatus, wherein the coupler is articulated.
RE claim 7, Fig, 4B of MacKay Sim (8,172,289) teaches the latch (115) is a circular latch (117) passing through an inner circular passage (see Fig. 4C) of the toroidal connector.
Exhibit A
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 2, 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacKay Sim (8,172,289) (see IDS) in view of Manney et al. (3,373,560).
MacKay Sim (8,172,289), as presented above, shows a lifting clutch device for lifting a concrete component, the clutch (see Exhibit A) comprising: a toroidal connector (115) (see Fig. 4A); a latch (115) movable relative to the toroidal connector from a disengaged condition to an engaged condition (See Figs. 4A-4C); and a coupler (101) configured to couple the toroidal connector to a lifting apparatus, wherein the coupler is articulated,
but does not specifically teach the coupler includes a first part and a second part pivotal relative to the first part about a pin, the first part including a first circular arc and the second part including a second circular arc, and wherein the pin is located such that a longitudinal axis of the pin is perpendicular to a line connecting a center of the first arc to a center of the second arc.
However, Figs. 1-8 of Manney et al. (3,373,560) teaches the coupler configured to couple the toroidal connector (141) to a lifting apparatus, wherein the coupler includes a first part (10) and a second part (12) pivotal relative to the first part about a pin (26), the first part including a first circular arc and the second part (see Exhibit B) including a second circular arc, and wherein the pin is located such that a longitudinal axis of the pin is perpendicular to a line connecting a center of the first arc to a center of the second arc.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide
or replace the single lifting shackle (102) of MacKay Sim (8,172,289) with the pivotal coupler (10 and 12) of Manney et al. (3,373,560) to provide flexibility and pivotal movement to a user.
Exhibit B
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
RE claims 5 and 6, MacKay Sim (8,172,289) shows that the second loop (10) is capable of directing fitment of a lifting chain while also enabling direct fitment of a lifting hook and the coupler includes an elongated pin (26) (see Figs, 1 and 2) extending about a longitudinal axis of which the second part is pivotal relative to the first part.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacKay Sim (8,172,289) (see IDS) and Manney et al. (3,373,560) and further in view of Lawley (7,562,919).
The modified MacKay Sim (8,172,289), as presented above, shows that the first loop and the second loop appears to be the same size,
but does not specifically show that
the first loop is a different size to the second loop or the first loop is smaller than the second loop.
However, Fig. 2 of Lawley (7,562,919) teaches a plurality of loops (30) having different sizes for lifting.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide
different size on the first and second loop on the MacKay Sim (8,172,289) as taught by
Lawley (7,562,919) to provide flexibility and more room to fit the application to a user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL T CHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6922. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-4:30 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, Gene Crawford can be reached on (571) 272-6911. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/PAUL T CHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651