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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in figure 1, the label for the clamping unit (8-2) with the clamping cylinder (10-3) should be (8-3); and also in figure 4, the friction wheel is labeled (8), however it should be (18) as described in the specification page 14, para [0064]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in the specification page 14, para [0062], lines 15-16 includes the statement “clamping units 10-2, 10-3”. It appears there is an error in these assigned labels because the clamping units as shown in the figures and the other portions of the specification are labeled (8-1,8-2,8-3).
The specification is also objected to because page 14, para [0062], lines 12-13, includes a statement “the clamping cylinder 10-1 configured as drive unit 14”. This statement appears to be in error because in the drawing the clamping cylinder 10-1 and the drive unit 14 are shown as separate and different structural features. Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is further objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: in particular there is no clear support and/or description in the specification as originally filed as set forth in claim 11 “at least one clamping unit is biased against the workpiece with a predetermined abutment force.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, at the beginning of line 4, it is suggested to replace “the support units” with -- the at least three support units --. For claim language consistency.
In claim 6 and 8-10, it is suggested to replace “clamping cylinders” with –
rotatable clamping cylinders--. For claim language consistency, as recited in claim 5
from which all these claims depend from. 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 1-19 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 the limitation “the workpiece holding device comprising: at least two clamping units configured to apply a radial and/or an axial clamping force to the workpiece to hold the workpiece in the workpiece holding device in a predefined position, and a drive unit configured to rotate the workpiece relative to the workpiece holding device.” Based on the manner in which the claim is set forth; the at least two clamping units and the drive unit are integral part of the workpiece holding device; thereby adequately suggesting that the workpiece is clamped to the work holding device. It is therefore unclear as to how the workpieces could be rotated by the drive unit without the work holding device being rotated together. The claim appears to be omitting essential elements, and thus amounting to a gap between the elements. The scope of the claim is therefore unascertainable. For prosecution purposes the drive aspect of the claim is interpreted as “a drive unit configured to rotate the workpiece
within the workpiece holding device”.
Claim 1, is indefinite because recites the limitation “a drive unit configured to rotate the workpiece relative to the workpiece holding device” without stating how and
by what manner the workpiece is rotated relative to the holding device, in that the claim as recited lack structural cooperative relationships between at least the drive unit, and the workpiece and the holding device to allow said claimed relative rotation to be performed.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the at least three clamping units" at the beginning
of line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the base claim 1, recites “at least two clamping unit”.
In claim 6, it is unclear what the limitation "wherein the drive unit is comprises an actively rotationally driven one of the at least two clamping cylinders" means, because (i) claim 5 from which claim 6 depends from does not recite “at least two clamping cylinders” and (ii) the phrase “is comprises an actively rotationally driven one of” is unclear and makes the claim confusing. The scope of the claim is unascertainable.
In claim 7, It is unclear what the limitation “wherein the drive unit is comprises an actively rotationally driven one of the at least two support cylinders” means because (i) claim 5 from which claim 7 depends from does not recite “at least two support units” and (ii) the phrase “is comprises an actively rotationally driven one of” is unclear and makes
the claim confusing. The scope of the claim is unascertainable.
Claim 8 recites the limitations "the at least two clamping cylinders", “the at least three clamping cylinders”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each one of these
limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the at least one clamping unit" in line. There is
insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the base claim 1 from which claim 11 depends from recites: at least two clamping units.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein a portion of the at least one clamping unit is biased against the workpiece with a predetermined abutment force and configured to maintain the predetermined abutment force as the workpiece thermally expands and/or thermally contracts”, however, it is unclear how the at least one clamping unit is biased against the workpiece as claimed because the specification as originally filed provides no clear support and/or description as to how the claimed biasing of the at least one clamping unit is executed.
Claim 18, recites the limitation “and wherein a first one of the at least three clamping cylinders is configured to be actively driven to rotate the workpiece in the main body portion and all other ones of the at least three clamping cylinders are passively driven by contact with the workpiece” in lines 9-11, without reciting how and by what manner “first one of the at least three clamping cylinders” and the “other ones of the at least three clamping cylinders” are actively driven, and are passively driven respectively as claimed, particularly since the claim includes no driving mean. The claim
appears to have omitted essential elements, and thus amounting to a gap between the
elements. The scope of the claim is therefore unascertainable.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 18, includes the preamble “A workpiece holding device for holding
a workpiece in a heat treatment system while the workpiece undergoes a thermal
expansion and/or contraction”. However, the body of both claims includes no particular structure for performing any heating or heat treatment of a workpiece to the extent of undergoing a thermal expansion and/or contraction. Hence the limitation “for holding a workpiece in a heat treatment system” is interpreted as an intended use of the claimed holding device. Furthermore, the court held that recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Also see MPEP 2114.II.). In this instant case a prior art document that teaches all the structural limitations of the claims for holding a workpiece in a cutting or a milling system that can result in any detectable thermal expansion and/or contraction in the workpiece would read on these claims.
Also, the claimed clamping cylinder is interpreted as being the convention pneumatic or hydraulic actuators used to hold or clamp a workpiece in place during a manufacturing or processing operation such as welding, assembly, and machining.
Also, the claimed supporting cylinder is interpreted as being the convention hydraulic or pneumatic cylinder used in mechanical systems to apply a force or a support to a workpiece or rigidity to a workpiece to prevent it from deflecting during
processing or treatment of the workpiece.
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, 4 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regele (US Patent No. 4,459,451) as evidenced by Menig et al. (DE102018212771, also see the Espacenet English Machine Translation Version “EEMTV”. IDS).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Regele teaches workpiece holding device (i.e. the hardening container, see figure 1 and column 2, lines 1-20) for holding a workpiece in a heat treatment system while the workpiece (8, see figures 1 and 2, and column 2, lines 1-20) undergoes a thermal expansion and/or contraction (i.e., due to the work hardening of the workpiece by the induction hardening system, see abstract, figures 1 and 2 and column 2, lines 1-20), the workpiece holding device comprising: clamping unit (i.e. holding device of support 6, see figure 1 and column 2, lines 1-20) configured to apply an axial clamping force and hold the workpiece in the workpiece holding device in a predefined position (see figure 1), and a drive unit (i.e. left hand motor 34, see figure 1 and column 2, lines 1-20) configured to rotate the workpiece (8) within the workpiece holding device (6, see figure 1 and column 2, lines 1-20). Regele also in figure 1 shows a single support unit for the workpiece.
Regele fails to teach a workpiece holding device that comprises at least two clamping units to apply an axial clamping force to the workpiece to hold the workpiece in the workpiece holding device in a predefined position and at least three support units configured to support the workpiece as claimed. Therefore, Regele differs from the instant claim only by failing to teach a plurality of clamping units used to hold the workpiece in the workpiece holding device in a predefined position. However, with reference to MPEP2144.04. VI.B., which pertains to the obviousness of duplication of parts, similarly to the instantly-claimed clamping units and that taught by Regele, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In this instant case the shape/configuration or the size of the workpiece would dictate the number of clamping units required to hold the workpiece in the workpiece holding device in a predefined position without deflecting as evidenced by ring shape workpiece (4) of Menig et al. (see Menig et al, figures 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b, “EEMTV”. abstract and description); where three clamping units (20, 30 and 40 see Menig et al, figures 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b, “EEMTV”. abstract and description) are used to apply a radial and/or an axial clamping force to the workpiece to hold the workpiece in the workpiece holding device in a predefined position and three support units (22,32 and 42, see Menig et al, figures 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b, “EEMTV”. abstract and description) provided for supporting the workpiece (4)
Regarding claim 15, Regele teaches a method comprising: providing a workpiece holding device (i.e. the hardening container, see figure 1 and column 2, lines 1-20)
placing the workpiece (8) into the workpiece holding device (see figure 1 shows as such), moving at least one clamping unit (i.e. holding device of support 6, see figure 1 and column 2, lines 1-20) into abutment with the workpiece (8), and clamping the workpiece with a predetermined force, powering the drive unit to rotate the workpiece held by the at one two clamping units at a predetermined rotational speed, performing a heat treatment on at least a portion of the rotating workpiece, starting the thermal treatment (surface hardening by heating, see abstract and column 2, lines 1-20) using an inductor 5, see figure 1, abstract and column 2, lines 1-20), maintaining the predetermined clamping force during the heat treatment while the workpiece thermally
expands and/or thermally contracts (see figure 1, abstract and column 2, lines 1-20).
Regele fails to teach a method in which the workpiece holding device comprises at least two clamping units to apply an axial clamping force to the workpiece to hold the workpiece in the workpiece holding device in a predefined position and at least three support units configured to support the workpiece as claimed. Therefore, Regele differs from the instant claim only by failing to teach a plurality of clamping units used to hold the workpiece in the workpiece holding device in a predefined position. However, with reference to MPEP2144.04. VI.B., which pertains to the obviousness of duplication of parts, similarly to the instantly-claimed clamping units and that taught by Regele, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In this instant case the shape/configuration or the size of the workpiece would dictate the number of clamping units required to hold the workpiece in the workpiece holding device in a predefined position without deflecting as evidenced by ring shape workpiece (4) of Menig et al. (see Menig et al, figures 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b, “EEMTV”. abstract and description); where three clamping units (20, 30 and 40 see Menig et al, figures 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b, “EEMTV”. abstract and description) are used to apply a radial and/or an axial clamping force to the workpiece to hold the workpiece in the workpiece holding device in a predefined position and three support units (22,32 and 42, see Menig et al, figures 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b, “EEMTV”. abstract and description) provided for supporting the workpiece (4)
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Regele teaches a method in which maintaining the
predetermined clamping force comprises passively or actively maintaining the predetermined clamping force (see figure 1 and column 2, lines 1-20) based on the force applied to the clamping device (6) by the drive motor (33, see figure 1 and column 2, lines 1-20).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 5-10, 14, 18 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regele differs from the instant claimed invention by failing to teach and/or suggest:
As in claim 2: a drive unit comprises a friction wheel or a friction roller configured to abut against the workpiece and frictionally engage the workpiece in order to rotate
the workpiece.
AS in claim 5: at least three clamping units each include a rotatable clamping cylinder abutting against the workpiece, and the support units each include a rotatable support cylinder on which the workpiece rests.
As in claim 14: a workpiece holding device, including: a main body portion supporting at least two clamping units, with each clamping unit including a rotatable clamping cylinder abutting against the workpiece; and a drive unit, and at least three support cylinders supported by the main body portion and configured to axially support the workpiece, wherein the drive unit comprises a friction wheel or a friction roller
configured to abut against the workpiece, and other claimed features.
As in claim 18: a workpiece holding device, comprising: a main body portion, at least three support cylinders extending from the main body portion for axially supporting the workpiece, and at least three clamping cylinders configured to apply a radial clamping force to the workpiece to hold the workpiece in the main body portion, and wherein a first one of the at least three clamping cylinders is configured to be actively driven to rotate the workpiece and all other ones of the at least three clamping cylinders are passively driven by contact with the workpiece, and wherein the at least three clamping cylinders are configured to move to maintain the radial contact force during
the thermal expansion and/or contraction of the workpiece.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fitch et al. (US 8,993,942), Chatterjee et al. (US 5,234,201) and Johnson et al. (US 9,169,529) are also cited in PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ABOAGYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8165. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
/M.A/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759