Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/920,964

Rapid Clamping System for Attaching Machine Tools to a Robot

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 24, 2022
Examiner
GATES, ERIC ANDREW
Art Unit
3722
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Ferrobotics Compliant Robot Technology GmbH
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
849 granted / 1081 resolved
+8.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1115
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
39.2%
-0.8% vs TC avg
§102
34.6%
-5.4% vs TC avg
§112
20.2%
-19.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1081 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 9 January 2026. 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 of this title, 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 11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsot et al. (US 10,820,954) in view of Reynolds (US 5,851,151). Regarding claim 11, Marsot et al. discloses a rapid clamping system, comprising: a clamping chuck 126 having a base plate 126, and which is configured to be mounted on a flange 124 which is a force-controlled positionable by a manipulator or a linear actuator 122; a tool holder 104 configured to be mounted on a machine tool 108, wherein the tool holder comprises a mounting plate 104 which, when in a locked state, rests against the base plate; two or more pins 160 configured, when in a mounted state, to align the mounting plate on the base plate and to prevent a movement of the mounting plate relative to the base plate in a plane parallel to the base plate; and a draw latch 187/188 configured to lock the tool holder on the base plate of the clamping chuck. Marsot et al. does not disclose “at least one elastic element comprising a disc of an elastic material which is arranged between the base plate and the mounting plate” or “such that in a locked state, the at least one elastic element is deformed and effects a pretension force between the base plate and the mounting plate”. Reynolds teaches the use of a clamping system 10 that comprises a chuck 12 with a base plate 18 and a tool holder 14 with a mounting plate 62, further comprising an elastic disc 60 made of elastic material for the purpose of applying a pretension force between the base plate and the mounting plate when in a locked state such that impact loads between the base plate and mounting plate are absorbed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have combined the clamping system of Marsot et al. with the elastic element of Reynolds in order to provide protection against impact loads that occur during a tool operation. Regarding claim 13, the modified invention of Marsot et al. discloses wherein the at least one elastic element is a part of the draw latch 187/188 (in as much as it provides the pretension force and impact load resistance to the base plate and mounting plate when the draw latch is locked). Regarding claim 14, the modified invention of Marsot et al. discloses wherein the draw latch 187/188 comprises a clamping bracket 187 and a hook 188 assigned to the clamping bracket. Marsot et al. does not disclose wherein the draw latch comprises a plurality of clamping brackets and a plurality of hooks assigned to the clamping brackets. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided additional draw latches to the clamping system for the purpose of providing additional locking security to the system, because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) Regarding claim 15, the modified invention of Marsot et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except Marsot et al. does not disclose wherein the hooks are mounted on the tool holder and the clamping brackets are swivel mounted on the base plate. However, Marsot et al. does disclose the reverse of this, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have reversed the location of these elements for the purpose of design choice, since it has been held that a mere reversal of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) Regarding claim 16, the modified invention of Marsot et al. discloses wherein the hooks 188 are mounted on the base plate 126 and the clamping brackets 187 are swivel mounted on the tool holder 104. Regarding claim 17, the modified invention of Marsot et al. discloses wherein the two or more pins 160, when in a mounted state, extend to corresponding holes 168 in the mounting plate 104. Regarding claim 18, the modified invention of Marsot et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except Marsot et al. does not disclose wherein the two or more pins, when in a mounted state, extend to corresponding holes in the base plate. However, Marsot et al. does disclose the reverse of this, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have reversed the location of these elements for the purpose of design choice, since it has been held that a mere reversal of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) Regarding claim 19, the modified invention of Marsot et al. discloses wherein the two or more pins 160 are mounted on the flange 124 and extend through corresponding holes of the base plate 126 and the mounting plate 104 (Marsot et al. discloses that the attachment mechanisms 160 (pins) may be located on the drive mechanism 124, such that the pins would extend through holes in both the adapter 126 and the handle 104, see column 22, lines 4-13). Regarding claim 20, the modified invention of Marsot et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except Marsot et al. does not disclose wherein the draw latch comprises an over center latch. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art of latches to use an over center latch for the purpose of providing a secure closure that is less likely to open during operation. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 9 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections were meant to be made using the Marsot et al. reference, not the Li et al. reference. Corrections have been made to remove Li et al. from the rejections. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANDREW GATES whose telephone number is (571)272-5498. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-6, Alt Fr 9-5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil Singh, can be reached on 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 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. /ERIC A. GATES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722 5 March 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 24, 2022
Application Filed
Oct 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 09, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599972
Chuck with Slip Protection
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594610
Four-Hole Core Drilling Machine
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589460
PIPE THREADING MECHANISMS AND SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589443
HOLE CUTTER WITH MULTIPLE FULCRUMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583038
DEVICE FOR AXIAL DISPLACEMENT OF A HOLE SAW FOR A HAND-HELD DRILL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+14.1%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1081 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month