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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on Application DE10 2020 005 960.0 dated 09/29/2020 and applicant has filed a certified copy of this foreign application on 03/28/2023.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19, line 3, “cross-section” should read --the cross-section--.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.
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 16-18 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 16 recites the limitation “machining the plate … at an angle … in relation to a surface of the plate” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because claim 16 earlier recites “producing a slot in a surface of a plate”. It is not clear if the same surface is claimed or a different one. For the purpose of this examination it is interpreted the same surface is claimed and the limitation is interpreted to be:--machining the plate … at an angle … in relation to the surface of the plate--.Examiner suggests claiming a first surface and a second surface if applicant intends to claim two different surfaces.
Claims 17-18 are rejected due to dependency on claim 16.
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 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Klinger et al. (DE 3008195 A1) hereinafter Klinger.
Regarding claim 12, Klinger teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a plate (panel 3 of working table), comprising a surface (surface 2) having a slot (continuous groove 5) designed for acceptance of a sliding block (clamping element 8), said slot having a cross-section which in perpendicular relation to a longitudinal direction of the slot (A) is a hexagon.
PNG
media_image1.png
987
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Klinger teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) a plurality of said slot arranged parallel to one another, wherein the slots extend in the longitudinal direction of the plate.
Claims 12, 14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Engibarov (US 5509644 A).
Regarding claim 12, Engibarov teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. 6, 7a-7b below) a plate (par. 2: “mating member 40 may be a machining table of a machine tool”), comprising a surface (bottom surface S) having a slot (channel 31) designed for acceptance of a sliding block (par. 2: “mounting member 30 is shown slideably arranged in a channel 31 within a mating member 40”), said slot having a cross-section which in perpendicular relation to a longitudinal direction of the slot is a hexagon.
PNG
media_image2.png
818
817
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Engibarov teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. 6, 7a-7b above) the slot has surfaces (surfaces L and R) which abut on the surface of the plate (S) and which enclose with the surface of the plate an angle of 45°.
Regarding claim 19, Engibarov teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. 6, 7a-7b above) a sliding block (mounting member 30) for acceptance in a slot in a surface of a plate, said sliding block having a cross-section in perpendicular relation to a longitudinal direction (A) of the slot, which cross-section is a hexagon.
Regarding claim 20, Engibarov teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. 6, 7a-7b above) the sliding block has a length (length in A direction; note that Figs. 6 and 8 show only a portion of the sliding block) which is greater than a maximum width (W) of a cross-section of the slot in perpendicular relation to the longitudinal direction of the slot.
Claims 19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Festo (DE 9115943 U1).
Regarding claim 19, Festo teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a sliding block for acceptance in a slot (fastening groove 4) in a surface (flat clamping surface 3) of a plate (clamping body 1), said sliding block having a cross-section in perpendicular relation to a longitudinal direction of the slot, which cross-section is a hexagon.
PNG
media_image3.png
535
576
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Festo teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the sliding block is designed to be threaded into the slot (par. 0051: “a threaded rod or a screw that can be screwed into the internal thread 22”) from above and to be rotatable in the slot (par. 0051: “the T-nut 16 with longitudinally oriented retaining parts 23 can be inserted into the fastening groove 4 from the clamping side 2 according to arrow 33, after which the transverse alignment corresponding to the clamping position 18 is obtained by a rotation by 90 degrees according to arrow 34”).
Regarding claim 22, Festo teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the sliding block is rotatable by 90° in the slot (par. 0051: “the T-nut 16 with longitudinally oriented retaining parts 23 can be inserted into the fastening groove 4 from the clamping side 2 according to arrow 33, after which the transverse alignment corresponding to the clamping position 18 is obtained by a rotation by 90 degrees according to arrow 34”).
Regarding claim 23, Festo teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the sliding block is rotatable by 41.5° in the slot (as stated in par. 0051, T-nut 16 is rotated by 90 degrees; therefore it passes 41.5 degrees).
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engibarov.
Regarding claim 13, Engibarov teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. 6, 7a-7b above) the slot has surfaces (surfaces L and R) which abut on the surface of the plate (S) and which enclose with the surface of the plate an angle of 45°. Engibarov further teaches the angle can change to increase/decrease the force F applied against the inclined surface (see below).
PNG
media_image4.png
501
291
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust 45 degree angle between surfaces L, R and the surface S of the plate based on the farce needed to be applied against the inclined surfaces. There is an absence of criticality to the angle and there is also an absence of unexpected results.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moussli et al. (WO 9107252 A) hereinafter Moussli in view of Engibarov.
Regarding claims 16-17, Moussli teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a method for producing a slot in a surface (S) of a plate, said method comprising: machining the plate with a disc milling cutter from left and from right plate to make a slot; and broaching the slot with a face milling cutter at a right angle (Fig. 2f) in relation to the surface of the plate. However Moussli is silent regarding angle of the slots shown in figs. 2d and 2e.
PNG
media_image5.png
824
530
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Engibarov teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. 6, 7a-7b above) a plate (par. 2: “mating member 40 may be a machining table of a machine tool”), having a slot (channel 31) with L and R surfaces at an angle of 45° relative to a surface S. Engibarov further teaches the angle can change to increase/decrease the force F applied against the inclined surface (see above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust 45 degree angle between surfaces L, R and the surface S of the plate based on the farce needed to be applied against the inclined surfaces. There is an absence of criticality to the angle and there is also an absence of unexpected results.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moussli in view of Engibarov as applied in rejection of claim 16 above and further in view of MrPragmaticLee (found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO7VKm-aBqU ).
Regarding claim 18, combined device of Moussli and Engibarov does not teach using a radius cutter to create edges of the groove.
MrPragmaticLee teaches machining edges of a dovetail slot on a surface of a plate with a radius cutter.
PNG
media_image6.png
1072
1470
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a radius cutter to create slots for matching male (sliding block) and female (slot) parts.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engibarov in view of Kollias (US 20200086460 A1).
Regarding claim 24, the sliding block (30) of Engibarov has a threaded bore for connection with object 20. But does not teach the claimed clamping tool and cylindrical foot piece.
Kollias teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a sliding block (122) for acceptance in a slot in a surface (S) of a plate (machine tool table bed 200); the sliding block has a threaded bore for connection with a cylindrical clamp adapter (101) via a threaded screw (121) and for receiving a clamping tool (810) with a cylindrical foot piece.
PNG
media_image7.png
900
1209
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a cylindrical clamp adapter of Kollias in sliding block and slotted plate of Engibarov to make it capable of holding clamping tools/workpieces.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wagner (DE 102010015283 A1) teaches a rotatable sliding block inside a slot of a plate.
PNG
media_image8.png
505
563
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHDI H NEJAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4pm EST.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
MAHDI H. NEJAD
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MAHDI H NEJAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723