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 Objections
Claim is 40 objected to because of the following informalities: A “;” should be used instead of a “,” between “element” and “mounting holes” (ln 2) and between “the fastening plate” and “and a fastening extension” (ln 4). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 55 is objected to because of the following informalities: “opposite each other at a distance of 180” (ln 2). 180 degrees is not a measurement of distance. Examiner recommends replacing “distance” with “angle”. Examiner notes applicant’s use of degrees in defining angles such as in claims 47 & 48 and recommends consistency across claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the central axis" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 47-49, & 52 recite this limitation and inherit the insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 39 recites the limitation "the fastening plate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 40, 41, & 44 recite this limitation and inherit the insufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 39, 50, 53 & 54 recite the limitation “the grip plate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 40-44 recite this limitation and inherit the insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 44 recites the limitation "the inclined channel" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 52 & 56 recite this limitation and inherit the insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 45 recites the limitation "the drive hole" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 49 recites the limitation "the guide" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 50 recites the limitation "the spiral channel" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 51 & 52 recite this limitation and inherit the insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 50 recites the limitation "the movement channel" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claim 52 recites this limitation and inherit the insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 52 recites the limitation "the inclined protrusion" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 52 & 56 recite the limitation "the inclined channel". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 53 recites the limitation "the holding element" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 53 recites the limitation "the fastener elements" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 53 recites the limitation "the fastener gaps" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 53 & 54 recite the limitation "the friction channel". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 44 is 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. Applicant claims a “movement channel” oriented in “the direction of which intersects with the central axis of the synchronous guide” and “enables the grippers to move in the direction of the central axis of the synchronous guide”. This limitation is indefinite as the grippers would not be able to move in the direction of the central axis if the movement channel intersected the central axis. Applicant is advised to replace “enables the grippers to move in the direction of the central axis of the synchronous guide” with “enables the grippers to move in the direction towards the central axis of the synchronous guide” consistent with the specification and claims. Claims 45, 46, and 56 depend on claim 44 and are therefore rejected.
Claim 47 is 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. Applicant claims “the synchronous guide has a rotation tooth which is adapted to be placed with an angle of 360 around the synchronous guide”. This limitation does not clearly describe what part of the synchronous guide is at an angle of 360 relative to the rotation tooth. Claim 48 depends on claim 47 and is therefore rejected.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 38-39, 41-42, and 47-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang (US Patent 9,302,328).
Regarding claim 38, the gripper assembly of Huang teaches a gripper assembly, particularly used in milling or CNC machines with one or more than one axes (Fig 9), adapted to grip a workpiece from two or more directions at the same time and with the same force (Fig 6, Col. 4 ln 7-9), the gripper assembly comprising: at least one plate (10) for fastening to milling or CNC machines (Fig 9); at least one drive element (43), adapted to rotate around its own axis by means of a rotation apparatus, and driven for gripping the workpiece in case fastening of the workpiece is preferred for processing thereof (Fig 6; Col. 3 ln 14-26); at least one synchronous guide (46) adapted to operate synchronously with the drive element, and can rotate around the central axis by being driven by the drive element, when the drive element rotates around its own axis as a result of being driven (Fig 6; Col. 3 ln 14-26); at least two grippers (42), which are formed for gripping the workpiece (Col. 4 ln 7-9); wherein the at least two grippers are adapted to be driven when the synchronous guide is rotated about its central axis (Fig 6; Col. 3 ln 14-26); wherein the at least two grippers enable the workpiece to be gripped by approaching towards the central axis of the synchronous guide when the synchronous guide is rotated around its central axis in one direction (Fig 6; Col. 3 ln 22-26); wherein the at least two grippers allow the workpiece to be released by moving away from the central axis of the synchronous guide when the synchronous guide is rotated around its central axis in another direction (Fig 6; Col. 3 ln 22-26).
Regarding claim 39, Huang teaches the limitations of claim 38 as described above, the gripper assembly of Huang teaches the plate enables fastening the workpiece to the CNC or milling machine (Fig 9), and consists of two separate parts, the fastening plate (10) and the grip plate (40, Fig 2).
Regarding claim 41, Huang teaches the limitations of claim 39 as described above, the gripper assembly of Huang teaches the grip plate (40) is positioned on the upper part of the fastening plate (10) to complement the fastening plate and form the plate (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 42, Huang teaches the limitations of claim 39 as described above, the gripper assembly of Huang teaches the grip plate (40), which is the component on which the drive element (43), the synchronous guide (46), and the grippers (42) used to grip the workpiece are held together and allowed to move, and on which a gap (Annotated Fig 4) is formed in the centre, starting from the lowest part of the grip plate to a place close to the top part and where the synchronous guide (46) is placed to be rotated around its central axis (Fig 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
691
831
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 47, Huang teaches the limitations of claim 38 as described above, the gripper assembly of Huang teaches the synchronous guide (46) has a rotation tooth (462) which adapted to be placed with an angle of 360 around the synchronous guide on the side that interacts with the drive tooth and interacts with the drive tooth and enables the rotation force transmitted through the drive tooth to be transferred to the synchronous guide (Fig 6; Col. 3 ln 14-26), and a spiral channel (461), and adapted to rotate around the central axis with the moment force it receives from the drive element (Fig 6; Col. 3 ln 14-26).
Regarding claim 48, Huang teaches the limitations of claim 47 as described above, the gripper assembly of Huang further teaches the spiral channel (461) is located on the other side of the synchronous guide (46) that does not have any rotation tooth (Fig 6), and can move the gripper (42) towards the central axis of the synchronous guide when it is rotated in one direction around the central axis thanks to its helical structure (Fig 6; Col. 3 ln 14-26), and which can move the gripper towards the opposite direction to the specified direction when it is rotated in the other direction and which is formed with an angle of 360 and adapted to move more than one gripper at the same time and in the same direction (Fig 6; Col. 3 ln 14-26).
Regarding claim 49, Huang teaches the limitations of claim 38 as described above, the gripper assembly of Huang teaches the gripper has a holding body (Annotated Fig 4 above) adapted to hold the workpiece in any geometric form and that helps to grip the workpiece as a result of the movement of the guide in the direction of the central axis, and helps to release the workpiece as a result of the movement of the synchronous guide (46) in the opposite direction to the central axis direction and which adapted to move towards the synchronous guide central axis at the same time and at the same speed when the synchronous guide rotates around its central axis (Fig 6; Col. 3 ln 14-26).
Regarding claim 50, Huang teaches the limitations of claim 49 as described above, the gripper assembly of Huang teaches the gripper (42) has a guide element (Annotated Fig 6 below) on the part that interacts with the spiral channel (461) and which is seated in the movement channel (Annotated Fig 6 below) located in the grip plate (40), and is adapted to enable the movement of the gripper within said movement channel (Annotated Fig 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
795
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 51, Huang teaches the limitations of claim 50 as described above, the gripper assembly of Huang teaches the guide element (Annotated Fig 6 above) has a movement tooth (421) adapted to interact with the spiral channel in the synchronous guide (Fig 6; Col. 3 ln 14-26).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Cushman (US Patent 435,405).
Regarding claim 40, Huang teaches the limitations of claim 39 as described above, the gripper assembly of Huang further teaches mounting holes (13) formed for placing the fastener elements required to mount and fix the grip plate (40) located on the plate to the fastening plate (10, Fig 2) and fastening notches (12) to fix the chuck assembly to the work bench (Fig 9, Col. 2 ln 43-44). Huang does not teach fastening holes or a fastener extension. However, the clamping face plate jaw of Cushman teaches the fastening plate (A) has more than one fastening hole (e) that enables mounting to the CNC or milling machine by inserting a fastener element (E, Fig 2), and a fastening extension (H) which is located on the side of the fastening plate that is fastened to the CNC or milling machine (Fig 4), to help the attachment of the fastener elements inserted through the fastening holes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to replace the fastening slots of Huang with the fastening holes of Cushman to increase fastener security and prevent the fastening element from sliding out. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to add a fastening extension to the gripper assembly of Huang to aid in sliding the assembly across a work bench (ln 70-78).
The combination does not teach the fastening extension being formed in the fastening plate. However, the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to form the fastening extension to the fastening plate of the combination to decrease complexity and strengthen the assembly.
Claims 43 & 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Conradson (US Patent 1,727,535).
Regarding claim 43, Huang teaches the limitations of claim 39 as described above, the gripper assembly of Huang teaches the grip plate (40) has a drive hole formed in the grip plate (40) so that the drive element (43) can be mounted on the grip plate and two opposite drive holes formed to drive from both opposing sides in the grip plate (Fig 6; Col. 3 ln 14-26). Huang does not teach two opposite drive holes formed to drive from both opposing sides in the grip plate with an angle of 180. However, the gripper chuck of Conradson teaches two opposite drive holes (Annotated Fig 4) formed to drive from both opposing sides in the grip plate (10) with an angle of 180 (Fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the gripper assembly of Huang with two drive holes at opposing sides with an angle of 180 to optimize user handling of gripper from either side.
PNG
media_image3.png
280
466
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 55, Huang teaches the limitations of claim 38 as described above, the gripper assembly of Huang further teaches two drive elements (43) positioned to interact with the synchronous guide (46, Fig 6) and to drive the synchronous guide (Col. 3 ln 14-26). Huang does not teach the two drive elements placed to be opposite to each other at a distance of 180. However, the gripper chuck of Conradson teaches the two drive elements (35, Fig 4) placed to be opposite to each other at a distance of 180 (Fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the gripper assembly of Huang with two drive elements opposite to each other at an angle of 180 to optimize user handling of the gripper from both sides.
Claims 44-46, 52, 56, & 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Hillenburg (US Patent 4,946,176).
Regarding claim 44, Huang teaches the limitations of claim 39 as described above, the gripper assembly of Huang further teaches the grip plate (40) has at least two movement channels formed for the gripper (42) to move on the opposite part of the grip plate that is not mounted to the fastening plate (10) and having the movement channel, the direction of which intersects with the central axis of the synchronous guide to enable the grippers to move in the direction of the central axis of the synchronous guide when the synchronous guide is driven (Fig 6). Huang does not teach an inclined channel in the movement channel. However, the radial jaw chuck of Hillenburg teaches having an inclined channel (76, Fig 10) provided in the movement channel (Annotated Fig 10 below) and formed on the sides of the movement channel so that the gripper (60) fits into the movement channel and does not come out (Fig 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the movement channel in the gripper assembly of Huang with the inclined channel of Hillenburg to minimize manufacturing costs and complexity.
PNG
media_image4.png
385
728
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 45, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 44 as described above, the gripper assembly of Huang teaches the drive element (43) can be rotated around its own central axis and has a rotation gap (Annotated Fig 6 above; Annotated Fig 4 above) on one side through which a rotation element (221, Fig 2) can be inserted (Fig 4) and which having a rotation gap, a seating recess and a drive tooth formed to provide the first drive so that the workpiece can be gripped (Annotated Fig 6 above; Col. 3 ln 14-26), and is provided in a region of the drive element close to the rotation gap (Annotated Fig 6 above), and which is formed in the drive element to prevent the drive element from coming out of the drive hole after the drive element is mounted to the drive hole (Annotated Fig 6 above; Annotated Fig 4 above).
Regarding claim 46, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 45 as described above, the gripper assembly of Huang teaches drive tooth (431) is located on the side where there is no rotation gap (Annotated Fig 6 above; Annotated Fig 4 above) and transmits the drive to the synchronous guide when the drive element (43) is driven (Fig 6; Col. 3 ln 14-26).
Regarding claim 52, Huang teaches the limitations of claim 50 as described above, the gripper assembly of Huang further teaches the guide element (Annotated Fig 6) has a movement tooth (421), which is a structure consisting of more than one extensions and gaps (Fig 6), these gaps fitting into the spiral channel located in the synchronous guide (Fig 6), and when the spiral channel (461) is rotated around the central axis, the movement tooth driving the gripper and subjecting it to movement (Col. 3 ln 14-26). Huang does not teach an inclined protrusion inside an inclined channel. However, the radial jaw chuck of Hillenberg teaches an inclined protrusion (76, Fig 10) that is seated inside the inclined channel (Annotated Fig 10 above) and prevents the guide element from coming out of the movement channel in the upward direction (Fig 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the movement channel in the gripper assembly of Huang with the inclined channel of Hillenburg to minimize manufacturing costs and complexity.
Regarding claim 56, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 44 as described above, the gripper assembly of Huang does not teach the inclined channel is formed with an angle of 45 degrees. However, Hillenburg teaches an inclined channel but without stating a specific angle of said inclined channel. To one of skill in the art, 45 degrees is merely a commonly machinable angle and lacks criticality. Determining a 45-degree angle for the inclined plane is merely routine optimization of the inclined channel of Hillenburg (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the inclined channel of Hillenburg with a 45-degree angle to minimize manufacturing costs and complexity.
Regarding claim 57, Huang teaches the limitations of claim 50 as described above, Huang does not teach the guide element has an inclined protrusion formed with an angle of 45. However, Hillenburg teaches the guide element (90) an inclined protrusion (88, Fig 5) but does not teach an angle of 45. However, to one of skill in the art, 45 degrees is merely a commonly machinable angle and lacks criticality. Determining a 45-degree angle for the inclined protrusion is merely routine optimization of the inclined protrusion of Hillenburg (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the inclined protrusion of Hillenburg with a 45-degree angle to minimize manufacturing costs and complexity.
Claims 53 & 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Buck (US Patent 3,252,710).
Regarding claim 53, Huang teaches the limitations of claim 49 as described above, the gripper assembly of Huang further teaches the gripper has a holding body (42), on which the holding element is placed with the fastener elements (Annotated Fig 4) mounted in the fastening gaps (Annotated Fig 4) and in this way, adapted for processing workpieces in any geometric form by means of different holding elements. Huang does not teach friction channels. However, the radial gripping chuck of Buck teaches a gripper (86) comprising a friction channel (76, Fig 7), which is formed on the other side where there are no fastening gaps in the holding body, in other words, on the side of the holding body that is in a frictional relationship with the grip plate (Fig 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the gripper assembly of Huang with friction channels to allow better lubrication spread to the sliding contact surface (Col. 4 ln 33-37).
Regarding claim 54, Huang teaches the limitations of claim 49 as described above, the gripper assembly of Huang does not teach a friction channel. However, the radial gripping chuck of Buck teaches a gripper (86) has a holding body comprising the friction channel (76), which is adapted to reduce the friction between the holding body and the grip plate by means of the lubricants directed therein (Col. 4 ln 33-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the gripper assembly of Huang with friction channels to allow better lubrication spread to the sliding contact surface (Col. 4 ln 33-37).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent 1,007,132 discloses a gripper assembly chuck with synchronous spiral guide and radial grippers for use in lathes, boring machines and similar machines.
US Patent 601,513 discloses a chuck assembly with synchronous spiral guide and radial grippers used in lathes.
US Patent 2,799,511 discloses an adjustable scroll chuck with synchronous spiral guide and radial grippers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RALPH D WILKINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6183. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-3:00.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/RALPH D WILKINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654