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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 12-24 were previously pending. Claims 12 and 14-16 are currently amended. Claim 13 is cancelled. New claim 25 is added. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 02/03/2026.
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, 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 12, 14, 19-20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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, 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 an 45°angle Engibarov further teaches the angle can change to increase/decrease the force F applied against the inclined surface (see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
818
817
media_image1.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.
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 the cross-section is a hexagon, wherein surfaces (38, 39) of the sliding block abutting an upper surface (surface 34 is interpreted to be an upper surface of the sliding block) of the sliding block enclose with the upper surface of the sliding block an angle an 45°angle 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.
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.
Regarding claim 25, Engibarov teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. 6, 7a-7b above) the angle is 45°.
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 at an angle in a range of 42°to 48° in relation to a surface of the 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_image2.png
824
530
media_image2.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_image3.png
730
1004
media_image3.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_image4.png
900
1209
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 use a cylindrical clamp adapter of Kollias in sliding block and slotted plate of Engibarov to make it capable of holding clamping tools/workpieces.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engibarov in view of Festo (DE 9115943 U1).
Regarding claim 21, Engibarov does not teach the sliding block is designed to be threaded into the slot from above and to be rotatable in the slot.
Festo teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a 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”).
PNG
media_image5.png
535
576
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings of Festo in device of Engibarov and make the sliding block rotatable. Doing so would make it possible to quickly insert and remove the sliding block from top surface of the plate.
PNG
media_image6.png
480
818
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engibarov in view of Klinger (DE 3008195 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Engibarov does not show the rest of the slots of the plate.
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; a plurality of said slot arranged parallel to one another, wherein the slots extend in the longitudinal direction of the plate. Klinger teaches such configuration on the slots make the device capable of clamping objects wherever is necessary on the table/plate (par. 0002 of the machine translated document).
PNG
media_image7.png
987
524
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 incorporate teachings of Klinger in device of Engibarov and add plurality of slots on the plate. Doing so would make the device capable of clamping objects in different portions of the table/plate when needed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 12 regarding anticipatory rejection by Klinger is fully considered and this rejection is withdrawn due to the amendments. However this reference is used for obviousness rejection of claim 15.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of amended claim 12 and 13 by prior art Engibarov are fully considered, but are not found persuasive. Applicant argued that “Engibarov was not relied upon to reject claim 13”, however claim 13 was previously rejected under 103 by Engibarov reference.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 19 on the grounds that “Engibarov fails to describe the angle range of the surfaces of the sliding block” are fully considered, but are not found persuasive. Because as shown in annotated Figs. of Engibarov above, the claimed sliding block is taught by Engibarov. Note that under BRI “a surface of the plate” is interpreted to be surface S and “an upper surface of the sliding block” is interpreted to be surface 34 of the block 30.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 19 on the grounds that “Festo does not disclose the angle” is considered and anticipation rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of claim 13 in previous office action (now currently amended claim 12) regarding “surface of the plate” are fully considered, but are not found persuasive. Because under BRI examiner has interpreted surface S to be the claimed surface on which surfaces L and R abut on.
Applicant’s arguments regarding “optimal manufacturing range” of 45 degrees and range of 42 to 48 degrees are fully considered, but are not found persuasive. Because manufacturing tolerance of a part is considered obvious under 103 and is a routine optimization.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights