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 § 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 1-13, 29 and 30 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.
Claim 1 recites “a first bayonet closure and a second bayonet closure for respectively locking and bracing said draw-in collet against said coupling element” in Lines 4-5. The claim also recites “said first and second bayonet closures being configured to be brought into engagement at the same time, with said draw-in collet being locked against said coupling element by way of said first bayonet closure, and said draw-in collet being braced against said coupling element by way of said second bayonet closure.” The boundaries of “locking” and “bracing” are unclear. Specifically, the difference between locking and bracing is vague, which leaves one of ordinary skill without understanding at what point is the feature considered to be locking/bracing and not, especially as both features are claimed as bayonets. Furthermore, the recitation at the end of the claim requires both bayonet closures to be brought into engagement at the same time. Yet, it is unclear as to what feature the bayonets are to be brought into engagement with. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “said first and second bayonet closures being spaced apart in an axial direction of the clamping device” in Lines 9-10. The metes and bounds of a bayonet closure are unclear. Under the normal meaning, a bayonet closure is a projection that works in tandem with a L-shaped groove. Here, the disclosed invention involves a double-projection that works in tandem with, at least partially, the same groove. Because both male and female parts of the connection are considered part of the bayonet closure, it is unclear how the first bayonet and the second bayonet are spaced axially apart. At most, the closures have portions thereof that are axially spaced apart (presumably from each other). It is also unclear whether the bayonet closures are spaced apart from each other or a different feature. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 2 recites “the tension sleeve is secured to a tension rod, is formed in one piece with a tension rod, or is a tension rod.” The claim should also recite, in each instance, that is it the tension sleeve formed in one piece or the tension sleeve is a tension rod. The difference between the tension sleeve being formed in one piece with a tension rod and the tension sleeve is a tension rod is unclear. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 3 recites “and/or via a tension rod to be threaded to said coupling element.” It is unclear how the tension rod is capable of axially displacing the collet if it is merely to be (i.e., in the future tense) threaded to the coupling element as opposed to actually being (i.e., present tense) threaded to the coupling element. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 6 recites “when said draw-in collet is detached, from a non-spread state, by a maximum radial widening distance of approximately 0.1 mm.” The term “when” adds confusion to the claim due to the timing requirement and whether the limitations following “when” are required if “when” never happens. Furthermore, it is unclear from what the collet is being detached from and how the maximum radial widening distance is determined. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 10 recites “when . . . said clamping surfaces to be placed against one another overlap.” The term “when” adds confusion to the claim due to the timing requirement and whether the limitations following “when” are required if “when” never happens. The “when” condition creates ambiguity as evidenced by the phrase “to be placed.” It is unclear if in the locked position, the clamping surfaces are placed against one another such that they completely overlap or if this is to happen at some future point in time. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 12 recites “said flexurally elastic region being formed on a side of a receiving region for the tool or the workpiece of the draw-in collet downstream of said second bayonet closure in a direction of insertion of the draw-in collet.” It is unclear what constitutes a flexurally elastic region formed on a side of the receiving region. It is unclear where the elastic region is other than on a side of a receiving region for the tool or workpiece. It is unclear whether the elastic region is downstream of the second bayonet closure or if the receiving region is downstream as claimed. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 29 recites “applying an external force counter to an internal force” in Line 6. It is unclear what constitutes an external force and an internal force. In particular, it is unclear what makes a force internal and external. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 29 recites “partially actuating the first bayonet closure and the second bayonet closure” in Lines 8-9. The metes and bounds of partially actuating the bayonet closures are unclear. That is, the point at which the closures are considered partially actuated and not is vague. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 29 recites “subsequently withdrawing the external force on the draw-in collet” in Line 14. The metes and bounds of the withdrawing requirement are unclear. That is, it is unclear how the withdrawal of the external force on the collet leaves the collet locked and braced. Appropriate correction required.
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, 2, 9, 10, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weller (DE 102014218039) in view of Uchihara et al. (JP 52-134183 A).
(Claim 1) Weller discloses a clamping device for a tool or workpiece (10; Figs. 1a-2d). The clamping device (10) includes a draw-in collet (30) and a coupling element (40, 50). The clamping element further includes a first bayonet closure and a second bayonet closure for respectively locking and bracing said draw-in collet against said coupling element (57, 37). Said first bayonet closure being formed on said draw-in collet and on said coupling element and said second bayonet closure being formed on said draw-in collet and on said coupling element (Figs. 1a-2d). That is, the first and second bayonet closures are corresponding protrusions and grooves between the draw-in collet (37) and the coupling element (40, 50). The first and second bayonet closures being configured to be brought into engagement at the same time, with said draw-in collet being locked against said coupling element by way of said first bayonet closure, and said draw-in collet being braced against said coupling element by way of said second bayonet closure (Figs. 1a-2d – both bayonet connections actually lock and brace at the same time). Weller does not explicitly disclose first and second bayonet closures that are axially spaced apart.
Uchihara et al. (“Uchihara”) discloses first and second bayonet closures that are axially spaced apart (Figs. 1-12; 6, 7, 4, 19). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the clamping device disclosed in Weller with axially spaced apart as suggested by Uchihara in order to regulate the axial position of the collet (Translation Pages 1-3). See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960) (holding that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced).
(Claim 2) The coupling element is a tension rod (40) or tension rod and sleeve (40, 50).
(Claim 9) The second bayonet closure has mutually clampable, coupling-element-side and draw-in-collet-side clamping shoulders (37, 57) that are distributed evenly over a circumference of said coupling element and multiple clamping shoulders distributed evenly over a circumference of said draw-in collet (Figs. 1c-1d, 2b-2c).
(Claim 10) The clamping surfaces on said clamping shoulders of said second bayonet closure lie in a plane perpendicular to a center axis of said clamping device (Figs. 1c-1d, 2b-2c; 37, 57), said clamping surfaces being formed and located on said second bayonet closure such that, when said first bayonet closure is in a locked position, said clamping surfaces to be placed against one another completely overlap (Figs. 1c-1d, 2b-2c). That is, as the bayonet is twisted, the protrusion overlaps with the groove.
(Claim 29) Weller discloses a method of preparing a clamping device for a tool or workpiece (10; Figs. 1a-2d), the method which comprises: providing the clamping device according to claim 1; axially displacing the draw-in collet (30) relative to said coupling element (40, 50) by applying an external force counter to an internal force, by pushing the draw-in collet into the coupling element with the external force being external to the draw-in collet (paragraph 0044), and at the same time partially actuating the first bayonet closure and the second bayonet closure (paragraph 0044); subsequently rotating the draw-in collet, with the external force, relative to the coupling element into a predefined position at a stop in the first bayonet closure (Figs. 1a-2d), wherein the first bayonet closure and the second bayonet closure are still partially actuated (during the locking step until fully engaged in the bayonet, the bayonets are partially actuated during insertion and twisting; paragraph 0044); and subsequently withdrawing the external force on the draw-in collet to thereby lock the first bayonet closure and to brace the second bayonet closure (Figs. 1a-2d, where tensile forces are transferred from coupling element; paragraph 0044).
(Claim 30) Weller fails to directly disclose: which comprises rotating the draw-in collet by approximately 60° relative to the coupling element. However, rotating a draw-in collet relative to the coupling element is a result-effective variable because modifying rotational mobility facilitates switching means of the coupling element, which therefore allows for a desired axial displacement to be achieved (paragraph 0016). Thus, at a time prior to effective filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the draw-in collet rotate by approximately 60° relative to the coupling element for the purpose of optimizing the securing of the collet. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weller (DE 102014218039) in view of Uchihara et al. (JP 52-134183 A) further in view of Maurer (US Pub. No. 2021/0078082 A1).
Weller does not explicitly disclose a clamping system, being a hydraulically actuated, pneumatically actuated, or electromechanically actuated clamping system, configured to continuously adjust a force and configured to axially displace said draw-in collet via said coupling element and/or via a tension rod to be threaded to said coupling element.
Maurer teaches a clamping system (1), being a hydraulically actuated, pneumatically actuated, or electromechanically actuated clamping system (inside chuck body 3, pulling element 6 is designed as a pneumatic or hydraulic piston, that can also be driven by an electric motor mentioned in paragraph 0026), configured to continuously adjust a force and configured to axially displace said draw-in collet via said coupling element (paragraph 0026-0027) and/or via a tension rod to be threaded to said coupling element. It would be obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clamping device of Weller so that the clamping system, being a hydraulically actuated, pneumatically actuated, or electromechanically actuated clamping system, configured to continuously adjust a force and configured to axially displace said draw-in collet via said coupling element as taught by Maurer in order to allow for easy pushbutton operation as opposed to repeatedly hitting the lever open or closed.
Claims 4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weller (DE 102014218039) in view of Uchihara et al. (JP 52-134183 A) further in view of Buettiker et al. (US Patent No. 4,776,734).
(Claim 4) Weller discloses a main body (20) formed with an inner cone (23) in which said draw-in collet, having an outer cone (33), is received. Yet, Weller does not explicitly disclose the main body having a concentricity adjusting device.
Buettiker et al. teaches: and said main body (6) having a concentricity adjusting device (#28, #30, #33). It would be obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the main body of Weller so that said main body is divided into two separate with a concentricity adjusting device as taught by Buettiker et al. in order to ensure a precise machining of a workpiece during drilling, countersinking, milling, reaming, etc. (Col. 1, Lines 11-14).
(Claim 6) Weller discloses said draw-in collet (30) being formed with slots (Fig. 2a) and spreading elements (31), which spread open said draw-in collet when said draw-in collet is detached, from a non-spread state (connecting strips 31 connect the clamping jaws 32 together mentioned in paragraph 0035). Weller does not explicitly disclose said draw-in collet being configured to spread open when detached, from a non-spread state, by a maximum radial widening distance of approximately 0.1 mm. Yet, a maximum radial widening distance is a result-effective variable because the spreading elements hold the collet segment together while at the same time providing a spring means to force the collet segments to move apart when closing pressure is removed from the collet to release the workpiece and when the collet is in the closed or work gripping position, the spreading elements are compressed. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to effective filing to provide a maximum radial widening distance of approximately 0.1 mm for the purpose of optimizing and allowing a larger variety of higher diameter tools or workpieces permitted to be attached to the collet without having to actuate or remove the collet from the body to allow those larger diameter tools/workpieces to fit, which decreases downtime.
(Claim 7) Weller discloses the cone angle of said outer cone of said collet in the non- spread state corresponds to the cone angle of the inner cone of said main body (Fig. 2a, where outer cone angle 33 corresponds to inner cone angle 23).
(Claim 8) Weller further discloses said spreading elements are elastomer fillings in said slots and/or in bores through which said slots pass (31 elastically compressible - paragraph 0035).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weller (DE 102014218039) in view of Uchihara et al. (JP 52-134183 A) further in view of Buettiker et al. (US Patent No. 4,776,734) and Haimer (US Pub. No. 2018/0071833 A1).
Weller does not explicitly disclose a cone angle of said inner cone and outer cone being between 2 degrees and 3 degrees.
Haimer discloses a cone angle of said inner cone and outer cone being between 2 degrees and 3 degrees (paragraph 0056). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cone angle of the inner and outer cone of Weller within the claimed range as suggested by Haimer in order to provide the chuck with a significantly more powerful clamping force (paragraph 0056).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weller (DE 102014218039) in view of Uchihara et al. (JP 52-134183 A) further in view of Tornos (EP 0007887).
Weller does not explicitly disclose a clamping mechanism being a spring-loaded pressing ring, configured to act on said draw-in collet.
Tornos discloses a clamping mechanism (1; Fig. 1) being a spring-loaded pressing ring, configured to act on said draw-in collet (ring 6 with spring 7 keeps collet 1 in place actuated axially). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the chuck collet of Weller with a spring-loadable or spring-loaded pressing ring, configured to act on said draw-in collet as taught by Tornos in order to maintain an axial force on the collet to keep it in place and retained inside the chuck body, preventing loose movement of the collet within the body.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weller (DE 102014218039) in view of Uchihara et al. (JP 52-134183 A) further in view of Tauber (DE 9201037).
Weller fails to explicitly disclose a force flow of a clamping force, which axially draws in the draw-in collet, being guided over a flexurally elastic region formed on a side of a receiving region for the tool or the workpiece of the draw-in collet downstream of said second bayonet closure, but in close vicinity of said second bayonet closure in a direction of insertion of the draw-in collet; and wherein said flexurally elastic region comprises a bellows and/or said flexurally elastic region is formed in a tension rod.
Tauber teaches a force flow of a clamping force, which axially draws in the draw-in collet, being guided over a flexurally elastic region formed on a side of a receiving region for the tool or the workpiece of the draw-in collet downstream of said second bayonet closure in a direction of insertion of the draw-in collet, but in close vicinity of said second bayonet closure (bellows coupling 7 is on the other side of tool receiving region 4 and allows axial movement to a certain extent between chuck 3 and body 1. It’s in close vicinity to chuck 3); and said flexurally elastic region comprises a bellows (7 is a bellows coupling mentioned in paragraph 0012). It would be obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chuck body of Weller so that a force flow of a clamping force, which axially draws in the draw-in collet, is guided over a flexurally elastic region formed on another side of a receiving region for the tool or the workpiece of the draw-in collet downstream of said second bayonet closure, but in close vicinity of said second bayonet closure; and wherein said flexurally elastic region comprises a bellows as taught by Tauber in order to reduce relative moment of the body with respect to the chuck when locking is achieved by the first bayonet.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues against the indefiniteness rejection of claim 1 because the terms “locking” and “bracing” have definitions within the specification. Despite the description of a bayonet as one of ordinary skill would understand it, Applicant alleges that a bayonet is merely a projection and a groove. Turning to claim 10, Applicant asserts that the claim is clear because the “when” condition is meant to refer to capability upon such a “when” happening. Applicant also argues that claim 29 lacks indefiniteness issues because both of the “external/internal force” and “partially actuated” limitations are defined within the claim. Relative to the prior art rejection, Applicant merely attacks Weller in isolation, alleging there is only a single bayonet. Examiner disagrees.
The specification fails to set forth special definitions of the terms “locking” and “bracing” as recited in the context of claim 1. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In the present case, the written description merely states that the terms “may be” or “can be” understood in the manner argued for by Applicant. These are not clear definitions of the terms mean ‘this’ as defined herein. As such, the indefiniteness issue persists.
Similarly, the recitations to two features as bayonets but with different structure than what is normally understood causes a lack of clarity in claim scope. One of ordinary skill would also not understand how one of the bayonets purportedly performs a different function than the other without guidance within the claim (i.e., one locks while the other braces - presumably the recitation of each creates exclusion of the other relative to the respective bayonet). If Applicant would like to define the first and second bayonets differently than as would be understood, the claim should reflect the structure of the bayonets. As it stands, the rejection has been maintained.
Likewise, rejections against claims 10 and 29 have been sustained. The argument that the “when” condition is mere capability upon “when” occurring fails to remove the issue of the timing requirement. That is, if the when condition never happens, it is unclear whether the claim limitation is met. This may be cured by simply reciting the claim in capability form with the term “when.” As for the external force, it is unclear what constitutes the force, how it is applied and to/from which features it is applied. Applicant argues that it is a “pushing” force on the collet but that definition fails the claim as there is recitation to “rotating the draw-in collet, with the external force . . . .” The same applies to the partial actuation. If the external force is merely a pushing force, it is unclear how the bayonets are considered partially actuated (because a twisting/rotating motion is required). Therefore, the indefiniteness rejections stand.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). That said, the Weller reference does indeed disclosed multiple bayonet closures. As stated previously, the collet includes a plurality of projections and grooves (which allegedly qualifies as a bayonet according to Applicant). Yet, the rejection is predicated upon the combination of Weller and Uchihara. The latter of which includes a projection entering an annular groove as well as an axially spaced projection that locks against a circumferential wall of a groove. Thus, the prior art of record reads upon the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RYAN RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Singh Sunil 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.
/RYAN RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights