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 the references characters in each of Figures 1-5 are not consistently legible. For example, each use of “1” as a reference character resembles either a “7” or a caret (“^”), and each use of “2” resembles either an “L” or a “Z”. 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (drawn to “A workpiece holding device for holding a in a heat treatment system while the workpiece undergoes thermal expansion and/or contraction”) in the reply filed on 12/18/2025 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the following ground(s):
First, method claim 15 includes the recitation "providing a workpiece holding device according to claim 1." Claim 15 therefore cannot be searched without considering the structure of the workpiece holding device of claim 1. That is, it would appear necessary to search C21D 9/00 in connection with method claim 15 as well as in connection with the apparatus claims.
This is not found persuasive. Although claim 15 includes the limitation, “providing a workpiece holding device according to claim 1,” claim 15 also includes the limitations of, “performing a thermal treatment on at least a portion of the workpiece in the workpiece holding device, and while performing the thermal treatment, adjusting the at least two clamping units to maintain the predetermined clamping force.” This limitation of “performing a thermal treatment on at least a portion of the workpiece in the workpiece holding device” necessitates the need of a different field of search, namely C21D1/00, wherein C21D1/00 includes general methods for heat treatment. This is because “performing a thermal treatment…” in and of itself is a general method for heat treatment. On top of this, Examiner respectfully disagrees that, “it would appear necessary to search C21D 9/00 in connection with method claim 15.” In claim 1, the workpiece holding device has an intended use of “holding a workpiece in a heat treatment system while the workpiece undergoes thermal expansion and/or contraction.” Claim 1 doesn’t, for example, require the workpiece to be able to be rotated. Claim 15; however, does require the workpiece to be rotated. Claim 15, for example, recites this rotation of the workpiece to be achieved by “rotating a first one of at least three support units.” Noting that claim 15 has specific requirements of the workpiece holding device that claim 1 does not require, instead of having to “search C21D 9/00 in connection with method claim 15” like Applicant contends, Examiner would instead need to employ a different field of search by, for example, searching different classes/subclasses. Applicant’s arguments are therefore not found to be persuasive.
The traversal is also on the following ground(s):
Furthermore, the class where the Group II invention is said to be classified, C21D 1/00, is entitled: "General methods or devices for heat treatment, e.g. annealing, hardening, quenching or tempering." Because this subclass relates to methods or devices, it appears that the Group I invention would also be classified here. That is, if C21D 1/00 is an appropriate subclass in which to search for the invention of method claim 15, it would logically also be an appropriate subclass to search for the invention of claim 1 (from which claim 15 depends).
This is not found to be persuasive. This is because the “devices” in “devices for heat treatment, e.g. annealing, hardening, quenching or tempering” are actually directed toward the devices performing the heat treatment. As the workpiece holding device of claim 1 is not a device for performing heat treatment, noting that the workpiece holding device is not a device for performing, for example, annealing, hardening, or quenching, it would not make sense to classify Invention I in C21D 1/00 like Applicant contends. Applicant’s arguments are therefore not found to be persuasive.
The traversal is also on the following ground(s):
MPEP 808.02 indicates that a serious search burden can be established by showing: "Separate classification thereof: This shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search." The present record does not show a separate classification but rather identifies two subclasses that both should be searched in connection with both the Group I and Group II inventions. For this reason, it is respectfully submitted that the two classes mentioned in the Restriction Requirement do not establish a separate classification of the Group I and Group II inventions in the art in a manner that supports a requirement for restriction.
This is not found to be persuasive. With regards to Applicant’s argument concerning search burden, Examiner notes the following. According to MPEP § 808.02.
Every requirement to restrict has two aspects: (A) the reasons (as distinguished from the mere statement of conclusion) why each invention as claimed is either independent or distinct from the other(s); and (B) the reasons why there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required...
Regarding part (B) (which is the part that deals with Applicant’s traversal arguments regarding search burden, MPEP section 808.02 (titled “Establishing Burden”) notes that:
Where the inventions as claimed are shown to be independent or distinct under the criteria of MPEP § 806.05(c) - § 806.06, the examiner, in order to establish reasons for insisting upon restriction, must explain why there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required. Thus the examiner must show by appropriate explanation one of the following:
(A) Separate classification thereof: This shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. Patents need not be cited to show separate classification.
(B) A separate status in the art when they are classifiable together: Even though they are classified together, each invention can be shown to have formed a separate subject for inventive effort when the examiner can show a recognition of separate inventive effort by inventors. Separate status in the art may be shown by citing patents which are evidence of such separate status, and also of a separate field of search.
(C) A different field of search: Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries, a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. The indicated different field of search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. Patents need not be cited to show different fields of search.
Please note that it is only necessary to show one of A, B, or C to establish burden. In the instant case, A was established, noting that separate classifications were identified on page 2 of the restriction requirement mailed 5/13/2025. Additionally in the instant case, C was established. On page 3 of the Requirement for Restriction mailed on 5/13/2022, it was established that at the very least, different search queries would be necessary to search the identified inventions. Different searching queries, for example, would be necessary to search the feature(s) of non-elected Invention II corresponding to, “performing a thermal treatment on at least a portion of the workpiece in the workpiece holding device.” Thus, burden has been properly established. Based on the foregoing, Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive.
The traversal is also on the following ground(s):
Next, it is respectfully submitted that the record does not show the Group I and Group II inventions are independent and distinct. The Restriction Requirement indicates that the apparatus of Group I can be used to perform a materially different process than the process recited in Group II because: "In the instant case, the workpiece holding device as claimed can be used to perform a material different process, such as a process in which each of the at least three support units (rather than just "a first one") is rotated SO as to rotate the workpiece, for example." This statement appears to relate to the claim 15 limitation: "rotating a first one of the at least three support units to rotate the workpiece in the workpiece holding device." Under ordinary rules of claim interpretation, this limitation allows for one, two or three of the support units to rotate the workpiece and would read on a process in which one or more than one of the at least three support units is rotated to rotate the workpiece. "A process in which each of the at least three support units (rather than just 'a first one') is rotated" is therefore not a materially different process from what is defined by claim 15.
Because the record does not establish that the Group I and Group II inventions are independent and distinct and does not establish a serious search burden by showing different classifications of the inventions, the requirement for restriction is respectfully traversed, and it is respectfully requested that the claims of the Group I and Group II inventions be examined together in this application.
This is not found to be persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Applicant should have set forth, for example, “rotating a plurality of the at least three support units to rotate the workpiece,” if Applicant had intended for an interpretation in which, “two or three of the support units to rotate the workpiece”? Noting this, Examiner believes there is a clear difference between rotating a first one of the support units (wherein a first one of the support units is a singular support unit) versus rotating each of the at least three support units. Applicant’s arguments are therefore not found to be persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/18/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species ii (drawn to “A second species in which the workpiece holding device for holding a workpiece in a heat treatment system has the configuration of Figure 2”) in the reply filed on 12/18/2025 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the following ground(s):
The election of species requirement is respectfully traversed because the only stated reason for requiring the election is that: "The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses and/or subgroups or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries)."
MPEP 808 provides that a restriction requirement must provide: "reasons (as distinguished from the mere statement of conclusion)…” to show why two inventions are independent and distinct and why there would be a serious search burden if all species are searched in one application. The foregoing statement is a mere statement of conclusion with no relation to the facts of the present application and therefore does not constitute a reason for requiring an election of species.
Furthermore, the foregoing statement appears to be based on MPEP 808.02, which MPEP section is quoted below in its entirety:
A different field of search: Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries), a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. The indicated different field of search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. Patents need not be cited to show different fields of search.
Nothing in the record supports a finding that a different field of search is required for the species listed in the Office Action. For example, different classifications of the species have not been alleged. The requirement might be based on an assertion that different electronic resources must be searched and/or different search queries must be employed. However, the foregoing statement does not explain why different electronic resources must be searched and/or why different search queries must be employed. The record also does not establish that it would be necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention as required by MPEP 808.02. It is hard to imagine, for example, that a hypothetical reference that anticipates species ii would not at least be pertinent to the inventions of the other species (even if it does not anticipate any of the other species). For these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the record does not establish a serious search burden in searching all disclosed species in the present application, and the requirement for an election of species is respectfully traversed.
This is not found to be persuasive. First, please be advised that with respect to the patentably distinct species, Examiner stated that, “The species are independent or distinct because claims to the different species recites the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species, as viewed in the aforementioned figures.” Noting this, each species has differing structural modifications that are not only disclosed, but visible in the illustrations. For example, the respective species have different arrangements of the clamping units and support units. Species i (see Figure 1), for example, shows three clamping units and three support units, wherein there is an offset of approximately 120°. Figure 1 also features a separate driving unit. Species ii (see Figure 2), for example, shows four clamping units and four support units, wherein there is an offset of approximately 90°. Species ii also shows one of the clamping units as carrying a friction roller. Species iii (see Figure 4) shows yet a different arrangement in which the support units and clamping units are attached on separate carriers. Lastly, Species iv (see Figure 5) shows yet another arrangement in which a rotatable cylinder and a clamping unit formed as a friction wheel are present as a combined element. As such, the distinction in structural modifications between species is apparent.
Turning to the issue of “serious search burden,” Examiner notes the following. According to MPEP § 808.02.
Every requirement to restrict has two aspects: (A) the reasons (as distinguished from the mere statement of conclusion) why each invention as claimed is either independent or distinct from the other(s); and (B) the reasons why there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required...
Regarding part (B) (which is the part that deals with Applicant’s traversal arguments regarding search burden, MPEP section 808.02 (titled “Establishing Burden”) notes that:
Where the inventions as claimed are shown to be independent or distinct under the criteria of MPEP § 806.05(c) - § 806.06, the examiner, in order to establish reasons for insisting upon restriction, must explain why there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required. Thus the examiner must show by appropriate explanation one of the following:
(A) Separate classification thereof: This shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. Patents need not be cited to show separate classification.
(B) A separate status in the art when they are classifiable together: Even though they are classified together, each invention can be shown to have formed a separate subject for inventive effort when the examiner can show a recognition of separate inventive effort by inventors. Separate status in the art may be shown by citing patents which are evidence of such separate status, and also of a separate field of search.
(C) A different field of search: Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries, a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. The indicated different field of search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. Patents need not be cited to show different fields of search.
Please note that it is only necessary to show one of A, B, or C to establish burden. In the instant case, C was established. On page 3 of the Requirement for Restriction mailed on 5/13/2022, it was established that at the very least, different search strategies or search queries would be necessary to examiner the exclusive characteristics of each species. The configurations of each species are different such that distinct search terms would be required for each. Species i (see Figure 1), for example, shows three clamping units and three support units, wherein there is an offset of approximately 120°. Figure 1 also features a separate driving unit. Species ii (see Figure 2), for example, shows four clamping units and four support units, wherein there is an offset of approximately 90°. Species ii also shows one of the clamping units as carrying a friction roller. Species iii (see Figure 4) shows yet a different arrangement in which the support units and clamping units are attached on separate carriers. Lastly, Species iv (see Figure 5) shows yet another arrangement in which a rotatable cylinder and a clamping unit formed as a friction wheel are present as a combined element. Noting this different configurations, Examiner would need to utilize different search strategies or search queries to account for the different angular offsets, a separate driving unit versus one in which one of the clamping units is a friction roller, the support units and clamping units being attached on separate carriers versus being attached on a same carrier, and/or a rotatable cylinder and a clamping unit formed as a friction wheel being present as a combined element. Thus, burden has been properly established. Based on the foregoing, Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Claims 12, 13, and 18 are also withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/18/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“at least two clamping units configured to apply a radial and/or axial clamping force to the workpiece to hold the workpiece in the workpiece holding device in a predefined position” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 4 of the claim, “clamping force” should be inserted after “a radial”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2 of the claim, “respective” should be inserted before “clamping cylinder”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2 of the claim, “respective” should be inserted before “radially inner end”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3 of the claim, “corresponding thereto” should be inserted after “the carrier”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 10 of the claim, “the centerpoint” should be changed to “the center point” so as to match “center point” of line 6 of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 11 of the claim, “corresponding thereto” should be inserted after “the carrier”. 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 1-11, 14, 16, and 17 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.
Lines 4-5 of claim 1 state, “at least two clamping devices configured to apply a radial and/or axial clamping force to the workpiece to hold the workpiece in the workpiece holding device in a predefined position.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to how or in what way that the at least two clamping devices are configured to apply an “axial clamping force” either by itself or in combination with a radial clamping force to the workpiece. As configured, it would appear that each of the at least two clamping devices is only configured for applying a radial clamping force to the workpiece so as to hold the workpiece in the workpiece holding device in a predefined position.
Lines 2-3 of claim 5 state, “the first cylinder includes a friction surfacing that increases a friction force between the first cylinder and the workpiece.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it unclear with respect to which element or baseline or metric that the friction surfacing performs the function of “increases a friction force between the first cylinder and the workpiece.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the second and third cylinders" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please be advised that claim 8 directly depends upon claim 6. Noting this, it is in claim 7 (not claim 6) that Applicant set forth “a second cylinder” and “a third cylinder.” Examiner suggests amending claim 8 to be dependent upon claim 7 instead of claim 6 in order to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Line 3 of claim 10 states, “an axis of rotation of the workpiece.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if “an axis of rotation of the workpiece” is a same axis or is a different axis than the previously set forth “rotational axis of the workpiece” of claim 6, noting that claim 10 is dependent upon claim 6 via intervening claims 8 and 9.
Lines 4-5 of claim 10 state, “wherein one of the at least two clamping cylinders is attached to each of the first, second and third carriers.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to how one clamping cylinder is able to be attached to each of the first, second and third carriers. In order words, how can a singular clamping cylinder be attached to plural carriers?
Lines 4-7 of claim 16 state, “a first rotatable support cylinder, a second rotatable support cylinder and a third rotatable support cylinder each having a cylindrical side surface configured to support the workpiece and each having a longitudinal axis of rotation lying in a plane and extending away from a center point.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as claimed, it is unclear if the respective longitudinal axis of rotation of each of the first, second, and third rotatable support cylinders extends away from the same one center point, i.e. a same one center point that is disposed between these rotatable support cylinders, or if instead, the respective longitudinal axis of rotation of each of the first, second, and third rotatable support cylinder extends away each from a different center point corresponding thereto.
Lines 13-14 of claim 16 state, “wherein the first rotatable support cylinder is configured to be driven to rotate the workpiece relative to the workpiece holding device.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if Applicant is setting forth that the workpiece is driven rotate relative to the workpiece holding device as a whole or just relative to a portion of the workpiece holding device. For example, noting that the first rotatable support cylinder is part of the workpiece holding device, considering that rotation of the first rotatable support cylinder drives rotation of the workpiece, is the workpiece actually being driven in rotation relative to the first rotatable support cylinder? If not, isn’t the workpiece really just being driven in rotation relative a portion of the workpiece holding device including but not limited to the first, second, and third carriers, for example?
Line 15 of claim 16 states, “the carriers.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if “the carriers” is intended to reference each of the first, second, and third carriers, or if instead “the carriers” is intended to reference, for example, a subset of the first, second, and third carriers.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Lines 4-5 of claim 1 state, “at least two clamping devices 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.” This limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement.
First, please be advised that “at least two clamping devices configured to apply a radial and/or axial clamping force to the workpiece” means that the at least two clamping devices are configured to apply a radial clamping force to the workpiece; or an axial force to the workpiece; or a radial clamping force and an axial clamping force to the workpiece. Noting this, Applicant does indeed comply with the written description as it pertains to the at least two clamping devices being configured to apply a radial clamping force to the workpiece to hold the workpiece in the workpiece holding device in a predefined position.
However, the at least two clamping devices configured to apply an axial clamping force to the workpiece to hold the workpiece in the workpiece holding device in a predefined position fails to comply with the written description requirement. Likewise, the at least two clamping devices configured to apply a radial and an axial clamping force to hold the workpiece in the workpiece holding device in a predefined position fails to comply with the written description requirement.
To explain this, Examiner directs attention to the drawings filed on 3/6/2023. With respect to Figure 1, while it lacks detail it appears to only show the clamping units (8-1, 8-2, 8-3) as applying a radial clamping force to the workpiece (2). Likewise, Figures 2 and 3 only show the clamping units (8-1, 8-2, 8-3, 8-4) thereof as applying a radial clamping force to the workpiece (2). Again, Figure 4 only shows the clamping units (8-1, 8-2, 8-3) thereof as applying a radial clamping force to the workpiece (2). With respect to Figure 5, the clamping unit (8) is configured to engage a radial outer surface (22) of the workpiece (2). In none of Figures 1-5 of the drawings though, are the clamping unit(s) thereof shown as being configured to apply (just) an axial clamping force to the workpiece to hold the workpiece in the workpiece holding device in a predefined position. Likewise, in none of Figures 1-5 is are the clamping unit(s) thereof shown as being configured to apply a radial and an axial clamping force to hold the workpiece in the workpiece holding device in a predefined position. Also, none of the clamping units of any of Figures 1-5 appear to be shown as having the capability of moving axially on the workpiece holding device so as to be able to apply an axial clamping force either by itself or in combination with a radial clamping force.
Next, with respect to the specification filed on 3/6/2023, Examiner directs attention to the following:
[0008] In the following, a workpiece holding device is presented for holding a workpiece in a heat-treatment system, wherein the workpiece received in the workpiece holding device experiences a thermal expansion and/or contraction, or an expansion and/or contraction due to a density difference arising in the microstructure during the phase transformation. In the following, only thermal expansion or contraction is discussed since even with a phase transformation a thermal component is usually present. Furthermore, the workpiece holding device includes at least two clamping units that are designed to apply a radial and/or axial clamping force to the workpiece so that the workpiece is positioned in the workpiece holding device in a predefined position. The workpiece is in particular a closed curves that is preferably designed rotationally symmetric, such as, for example, an element of a plain or rolling-element bearing, a bearing ring, a gear, a bolt, a sleeve, a disc, etc.
[0036] Here it is advantageous in particular when, in an essentially rotationally symmetric workpiece, the movable element is axially, radially, and/or tangentially movable. Thus not only can thermal expansions/contractions, or expansions/contractions due to a density difference arising in the microstructure during the phase transformation, be supported, but also manufacturing tolerances, such as, for example, a certain ovality of the workpiece can be compensated for during the clamping. Such an adapting is advantageous in particular with workpieces with closed curves, such as, for example, elements of a plain or rolling-element bearing, bearing rings, gears, bolts, sleeves, discs, etc. In particular with annular workpieces, the clamping units are preferably displaceable radially, for example, by an electric or hydraulic drive, and prior to the thermal treatment are moved toward the workpiece until it is firmly held between the clamping units. In order to be able to compensate for manufacturing tolerances, one or more of the clamping units can be supported such that it is eccentrically displaceable. A further embodiment provides that clamping units, which hold a workpiece radially, in addition can also follow in the axial direction the thermal expansion/contraction or an expansion/contraction due to a density difference arising in the microstructure during the phase transformation. Here it is advantageous in particular when the movable element is formed as an eccentrically supported element, since the eccentric supporting provides both a radial and a tangential movability of the element.
[0065] The clamping units 8, the support units 12, and/or the drive unit14 can be moved radially, axially, circumferentially and/or tangentially in order to optimally abut against the workpiece 2. Furthermore, on one or more of the units 8, 12, 14 it is possible to attach one or more measuring devices13 that are designed to measure a contact force and/or clamping force and/or friction force between the clamping units8 and/or the support units12 and/or
As can be seen above, while Applicant discusses the possibility of the clamping units (8) being able to follow or be moved axially, this isn’t what is shown in any of Figures 1-5. Again, none of the clamping units of any of Figures 1-5 appear to be shown as having the capability of moving axially on the workpiece holding device so as to be able to apply an axial clamping force either by itself or in combination with a radial clamping force. Furthermore, even if the clamping units (8) of the Figures 1-5 could move axially (which again doesn’t appear to even be possible), how is it that the clamping units (8) could even apply this axially clamping force? How does a clamping unit (8) that is formed as clamping cylinder (10) that touches the workpiece (2) in a radial direction apply the axial clamping force?
Based on the foregoing, it cannot be reasonably conveyed to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Lines 9-12 of claim 16 state, “each of the first, second and third carriers having an end closest to the centerpoint that is pivotably supported such that pivoting the carrier moves a respective clamping cylinder toward the workpiece to clamp the workpiece with a predetermined force.” This limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement. To explain this point, Examiner will first direct attention to the specification filed on 3/6/2023 and then will direct attention to the drawings filed on 3/6/2023.
First, with respect to the specification filed on 3/6/2023, Examiner directs attention to the following:
[0050] A further exemplary embodiment comprises a workpiece holding device for holding an annular workpiece in a heat treatment system while the workpiece undergoes a thermal expansion and/or contraction which holding device includes a first rotatable support cylinder, a second rotatable support cylinder and a third rotatable support cylinder each having a cylindrical side surface configured to support the workpiece and each having a longitudinal axis of rotation lying in a plane and extending away from a center point. The device also includes a first carrier supporting a first clamping cylinder, a second carrier supporting a second clamping cylinder and a third carrier supporting a third clamping cylinder, each of the first, second and third carriers having an end closest to the centerpoint that is pivotably supported such that pivoting the carrier moves a respective clamping cylinder toward the workpiece to clamp the workpiece with a predetermined force. The first rotatable support cylinder is configured to be driven to rotate the workpiece relative to the workpiece holding device, and the carriers are configured to pivot to maintain the predetermined force while the workpiece undergoes the thermal expansion or contraction. In addition, the first rotatable support cylinder may be mounted on the first carrier or on a separate fourth carrier, the second rotatable cylinder may be mounted on the second carrier or on a separate fifth carrier, and the third rotatable cylinder may be mounted on the third carrier or on a separate sixth carrier. The longitudinal axis of rotation of each of the rotatable support cylinders may be perpendicular to an axis of rotation of each of the first, second and third clamping cylinders.
As can be seen above, Applicant’s above disclosure in paragraph [0050] is identical to the claim language with, “each of the first, second and third carriers having an end closest to the centerpoint that is pivotably supported such that pivoting the carrier moves a respective clamping cylinder toward the workpiece to clamp the workpiece with a predetermined force.” (Please be advised that the claim limitation of claim 16 corresponding to, “the carriers are configured to pivot to maintain the predetermined force while the workpiece undergoes the thermal expansion or contraction,” is also found above in paragraph [0050]).
Next, Examiner directs attention to the following:
[0072] In addition to the radial adjustability of the clamping units 8, in addition it can also be provided that the carriers 60 are themselves movable and can be brought from an open position in which the workpiece 2 can be placed in the workpiece holding device 6 and against the cylindrical rollers 16, into a closed position in which the workpiece is clamped in the clamping units 8 and they abut against the workpiece 2 with clamping force. For this purpose the carriers 60 are rotatably supported on carrier bearing assemblies 64-1, 64-2, 64-3, 64-4. The carrier bearing assemblies 64 are in turn disposed eccentrically with respect to the rotational center M of the workpiece.
[0073] Fig. 3 schematically shows the design from Fig. 2, and the clamping possibility corresponds to that in the exemplary embodiment depicted in Fig. 2. Since, as mentioned above, the carriers 60 are not supported in the rotational center M but rather are eccentrically supported at points 64-1, 64-2, 64-3 and 64-4, the distance between the clamping elements 8 and the workpiece 2 can be maximized or minimized depending on the position of the carriers. Thus, for example, in a so-called zero position, the distance between clamping unit 8 and the workpiece 2 can be maximized so that the workpiece 2 can be inserted into the workpiece holding device 6 without it contacting the clamping unit. In the exemplary embodiment depicted, this is possible with an orientation of the carriers in the radius direction of the workpiece. That is, when the carrier is oriented precisely in the radius direction R of the workpiece 2 (see Fig. 3), the distance between workpiece 2 and clamping unit 8 is maximized. With an angular adjustment about the zero position (see arrow), the clamping unit 8 approaches the workpiece 2 until the clamping unit 8 abuts against the workpiece 2 and can exert a clamping force. This applies to the design shown in Fig. 2 or 3, in which a radially inwardly directed clamping force is applied, and the clamping units 8 are disposed radially outside on the workpiece 2.
Noting the above, the claimed “pivotably supported” limitation of independent claim 16 seemingly refers to the carriers (60) being rotatably supported on the carrier bearing assemblies (64-1, 64-2, 64-3, 64-4) discussed in paragraph [0072]. Next, the claimed, “pivoting the carrier” seemingly refers to the “angular adjustment about the zero position” that is discussed in paragraph [0073].
Having established the above, Examiner will now direct attention to the claim limitation of, “pivoting the carrier moves a respective clamping cylinder toward the workpiece to clamp the workpiece with a predetermined force.” Please be advised that pivoting a carrier about “the zero position” neither moves the respective clamping cylinder toward nor away from the workpiece to clamp the workpiece with a predetermined force. Rather, only an angular adjustment of the respective clamping cylinder results from pivoting the carrier. To try and illustrate this point, Examiner has annotated Figure 2 and provided it below (see next page).
In this rough annotation of Figure 2, Examiner has tried to show that when, for example, pivoting the carrier 60-4 clockwise about its bearing assembly 64-1, the carrier (60-4) and its clamping unit (8-4)/clamping cylinder (10-4) are only angularly displaced in a horizontal plane. The pivoting does not result in the clamping cylinder (10-4) being moved “toward the workpiece to clamp the workpiece with a predetermined force” like what is being claimed in lines 9-12 of claim 16. If anything, pivoting the carrier (60-4) about its bearing assembly (64-1) functions to move the respective clamping cylinder (10-4) angularly about the workpiece in the plane that was set forth in line 6 of claim 16.
PNG
media_image1.png
635
938
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For this reason, “each of the first, second and third carriers having an end closest to the centerpoint that is pivotably supported such that pivoting the carrier moves a respective clamping cylinder toward the workpiece to clamp the workpiece with a predetermined force,” fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Based on the foregoing, it cannot be reasonably conveyed to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (China Publication No. CN 114042947 A).
Please be advised that a machine translation of Zhang, which translation has been provided with this office action, is relied upon below.
Claim 1: Please be advised that two different interpretations of Zhang will now be presented in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang.
First Interpretation
Figure 1 of Zhang shows a workpiece holding device for holding a workpiece (1). Please be advised that the workpiece holding device of Zhang is considered to be inherently capable of performing the claimed intended use of, “holding a workpiece in a heat treatment system while workpiece undergoes a thermal expansion and/or contraction,” simply by utilizing the workpiece holding device in a heat treatment system whilst the workpiece (1) undergoes thermal expansion and/or contraction. Please note that the claims are drawn to an apparatus with an intended use of “holding a workpiece in a heat treatment system while workpiece undergoes a thermal expansion and/or contraction,” and the workpiece holding device taught by Zhang is blind as to environment in which it is utilized, i.e. if the workpiece holding device of Zhang is utilized in a heat treatment system said workpiece holding device will function to hold the workpiece (1) in the heat treatment system whilst the workpiece (1) incurs processing (such as thermal expansion and/or contraction).
Next, as can be seen in Figure 1, the workpiece holding device comprises at least three support units (A1, A2, A3, A4) that are configured to support the workpiece (1).
Attention is now directed to Figure 2, which shows an exemplary one of the at least three support units (A1, A2, A3, A4). For the sake of discussion, support unit A1 will hereinafter be referred to by Examiner as a first one (A1) of the at least three support units (A1, A2, A3, A4). Noting this, as can be seen within Figure 2 of Zhang, the first one (A1) of the at least three support units (A1, A2, A3, A4) includes a first cylinder (9) that is configured to support the workpiece (1) by means of a top (5) of the first cylinder (9), the first cylinder (9) having a longitudinal axis and being configured to rotate around the longitudinal axis.
Next, be advised that lines 4-6 of claim 1 set forth therein, “at least two clamping units configured to apply a radial and/or axial clamping force to the workpiece to hold the workpiece in the workpiece holding device in a predefined position.” Noting this, “at least two clamping units” is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Please be advised that “at least two clamping units” is interpreted as comprising the structure that is disclosed in paragraph [0070] of Applicant’s specification filed on 3/6/2023, as well as equivalents thereto.
With respect to the prior art, Zhang shows a pair of opposing assemblies (W1, W4). When each of the pair of opposing assemblies (W1, W4) is engaged with a respective one of the at least three support units (A1, A2, A3, A4) at a given time and is subsequently actuated, each of the opposing assemblies (W1, W4) is able to apply a radial and/or an axial clamping force to the workpiece (1) by moving the head (5) of the corresponding cylinder (9) into contact with the outer periphery of the workpiece (1) so as to hold the workpiece (1) in the workpiece holding device in a predefined position within a chuck sleeve (2). As such, each of the pair of opposing assemblies (W1, W4) constitutes an equivalent of the “clamping unit” of line 4 of claim 1. This is because each of the pair of opposing assemblies (W1, W4) carries out the function that’s specified in lines 4-6 of claim 1, the function being, “apply a radial and/or axial clamping force to the workpiece to hold the workpiece in the workpiece holding device in a predefined position.” Also, the pair of opposing assemblies (W1, W4) is not excluded by any explicit definition that is provided in Applicant’s specification, and said pair of opposing assemblies (W1, W4) produces substantially the same result as the corresponding “at least two clamping units [8]” of Applicant. Based on the foregoing, the pair of opposing assemblies (W1, W4) of Zhang will hereinafter be referred to by Examiner as “the at least two clamping units (W1, W4).”
Second Interpretation
Claim 1: Figure 1 of Zhang shows a workpiece holding device for holding a workpiece (1). Please be advised that the workpiece holding device of Zhang is considered to be inherently capable of performing the claimed intended use of, “holding a workpiece in a heat treatment system while workpiece undergoes a thermal expansion and/or contraction,” simply by utilizing the workpiece holding device in a heat treatment system whilst the workpiece (1) undergoes thermal expansion and/or contraction. Please note that the claims are drawn to an apparatus with an intended use of “holding a workpiece in a heat treatment system while workpiece undergoes a thermal expansion and/or contraction,” and the workpiece holding device taught by Zhang is blind as to environment in which it is utilized, i.e. if the workpiece holding device of Zhang is utilized in a heat treatment system said workpiece holding device will function to hold the workpiece (1) in the heat treatment system whilst the workpiece (1) incurs processing (such as thermal expansion and/or contraction).
Next, be advised that lines 4-6 of claim 1 set forth therein, “at least two clamping units configured to apply a radial and/or axial clamping force to the workpiece to hold the workpiece in the workpiece holding device in a predefined position.” Noting this, “at least two clamping units” is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Please be advised that “at least two clamping units” is interpreted as comprising the structure that is disclosed in paragraph [0070] of Applicant’s specification filed on 3/6/2023, as well as equivalents thereto.
With respect to the prior art, Figure 1 of Zhang shows four front jaws (A1, A2, A3, A4). Please be advised that Figure 2 shows an exemplary one of the four front jaws (A1, A2, A3, A4). As can be seen therein, each of the four front jaws (A1, A2, A3, A4) of Zhang includes a respective clamping cylinder (5). As such, each one of the four front jaws (A1, A2, A3, A4) corresponds in structure to a “clamping unit” of line 4 of claim 1, noting that Applicant disclosed in paragraph [0070] of the specification that, “the clamping units include clamping cylinders.” Thus, the four front jaws (A1, A2, A3, A4) of Zhang will hereinafter be referred to by Examiner as “the at least two clamping units (A1, A2, A3, A4).” Noting this, as can be seen between at least Figure 3 and Figure 5 of Zhang, the at least two clamping units (A1, A2, A3, A4) are configured to apply a radial and/or axial clamping force to the workpiece (1) to hold the workpiece (1) in the workpiece holding device in a predetermined position within a first cylinder (2).
Next, attention is again direction to Figure 1 of Zhang. As can be seen therein, the workpiece holding device comprises at least three support units (2+24, W1, W2, W3, W4) that are configured to support the workpiece (1), the at least three support units (2+24, W1, W2, W3, W4) including a first one (2+24), a second one (W1), a third one (W2), a fourth one (W3), and a fifth one (W4). Please be advised that the first one (2+24) supports the workpiece by means of the at least two clamping units (A1, A2, A3, A4) as well as by means of four rear jaws (B1, B2, B3, B4). As to each of the second one (W1), third one (W2), fourth one (W3), and fifth one (W4), each is configured to “support” the workpiece (1) by carrying out a tightening step. For example, the second one (W1) and the fifth one (W4) are configured to “support” the workpiece (1) by tightening the clamping cylinders (5) of the at least two clamping units (A1, A2, A3, A4) on the outer periphery of the workpiece (1). Also, the third one (W2) and the fourth one (W3) are configured to “support” the workpiece (1) by tightening the clamping cylinders (5) of the four rear jaws (B1, B2, B3, B4) on the outer periphery of the workpiece (1).
Further, the first one (2+24) of the at least three support units (2+24, W1, W2, W3, W4) includes the first cylinder (2) (see at least Figures 1, 3, and 5) that, as was stated above, is configured to support the workpiece (1).
Please be advised that the first cylinder (2) has a longitudinal axis (corresponding to the cylindrical body thereof) and said first cylinder (2) is configured to rotate around (i.e. configured to rotate about) the longitudinal axis by actuation of the driving motor (24). Figure 5 of Zhang shows this longitudinal axis of the first cylinder (2) as extending from left-to-right/right-to-left from the perspective of Figure 5. Noting this, in comparing Figure 1 to 5, it can be determined that the longitudinal axis of the first cylinder (2) extends horizontally.
Additionally/Alternatively, the first cylinder (2) has series of longitudinal axes, each longitudinal axis of the series corresponding to either a clamping unit (A1, A2, A3, A4) thereof or to a rear jaw (B1, B2, B3, B4) thereof. One such longitudinal axis can be seen in Figure 2 in which the dashed line extends through the exemplary clamping unit (A1, A2, A3, A4)/exemplary rear jaw (B1, B2, B3, B4) so as to intersect the cylindrical body of the first cylinder (2). Noting this, by actuation of the driving motor (24), the first cylinder (2) is set in rotation “around”/next to/beside each of the series of longitudinal axes corresponding to either a clamping unit (A1, A2, A3, A4) thereof or to a rear jaw (B1, B2, B3, B4) thereof.
Claim 2: Claim 2 and the claims depending therefrom will now be rejected with respect to the second interpretation of Zhang.
The workpiece (1) is supported on the first cylinder (2) of Zhang such that rotating the first cylinder (2) (through actuation of the corresponding driving motor (24)) causes the workpiece (1) to rotate in the workpiece holding device.
Claim 3: Regarding the first cylinder (20), it formed as a cylindrical friction roller. This is because the first cylinder (2) frictionally engages the workpiece (1) via each clamping cylinder (5) of the at least two clamping units (A1, A2, A3, A4) and via each clamping cylinder (5) of the four rear jaws (B1, B2, B3, B4).
Claim 4: Please be advised that a weight of the workpiece (1) determines a friction force between the friction roller/first cylinder (2) and the workpiece (1). For example, the weight of the workpiece (1) on the lowermost clamping unit (A2) (from the perspective of Figure 1) and on the lowermost rear jaw (from the perspective of Figure 1) determines a friction force between the friction roller (2) and the workpiece (1).
Claim 5: Each clamping cylinder (5) of the at least two clamping units (A1, A2, A3, A4) and each clamping cylinder (5) of the four rear jaws (B1, B2, B3, B4) constitutes a friction surfacing. It is noted that every physical surface in contact with another has a coefficient of friction as no two surfaces are perfectly smooth in reality. Thus, via the clamping cylinders (5) mounted thereto, the first cylinder (2) of the workpiece holding device includes a friction surfacing that increases (as best understood) a friction force between the first cylinder (2) and the workpiece (1).
Claim 6: Figure 5 of Zhang shows a rotation axis of the workpiece (1) extending from left-to-right/ right-to-left from the perspective of Figure 5. Noting this, in comparing Figure 1 to 5, it can be determined that the rotational of the workpiece (1) extends horizontally in a first direction.
Next, as was advised above in the rejection of claim 1, the first cylinder (2) has series of longitudinal axes, each longitudinal axis of the series corresponding to either a clamping unit (A1, A2, A3, A4) thereof or to a rear jaw (B1, B2, B3, B4) thereof. One such longitudinal axis can be seen in Figure 2 of Zhang in which the dashed line extends through the exemplary clamping unit (A1, A2, A3, A4)/exemplary rear jaw (B1, B2, B3, B4) so as to intersect the cylindrical body of the first cylinder (2). Noting that said dashed line of Figure 2 is considered to correspond to “the longitudinal axis of the first cylinder” of claim 6, this longitudinal axis of the first cylinder (2) extends in a second horizontal direction perpendicular to the rotational axis of the workpiece (1).
Claim 7: Claim 7 will now be rejected with respect to the first interpretation of Zhang.
As was stated above in the rejection of claim 1, the workpiece holding device comprises at least three support units (A1, A2, A3, A4) that are configured to support the workpiece (1). Noting again that support unit A1 corresponds to the first one (A1) of the at least three support units (A1, A2, A3, A4), please be advised that support unit A2 corresponds to a second one (A1) of the at least three support units (A1, A2, A3, A4) and support unit A3 corresponds to a third one (A3) of the at least three support units (A1, A2, A3, A4).
Noting the above, as can be seen within Figure 2 of Zhang, the second one (A2) of the at least three support units (A1, A2, A3, A4) includes a second cylinder (9) that is configured to support the workpiece (1) by means of a top (5) of the second cylinder (9), the second cylinder (9) having a longitudinal axis and being configured to rotate around the longitudinal axis.
Likewise, as can be seen within Figure 2 of Zhang, the third one (A3) of the at least three support units (A1, A2, A3, A4) includes a third cylinder (9) that is configured to support the workpiece (1) by means of a top (5) of the third cylinder (9), the third cylinder (9) having a longitudinal axis and being configured to rotate around the longitudinal axis.
Claim 7 will now be rejected with respect to the second interpretation of Zhang.
As was stated in the rejection of claim 1, the workpiece holding device comprises at least three support units (2+24, W1, W2, W3, W4) including a first one (2+24), a second one (W1), a third one (W2), a fourth one (W3), and a fifth one (W4). Be advised that the second one (W1) is configured to “support” the workpiece (1) by tightening the clamping cylinders (5) of the at least two clamping units (A1, A2, A3, A4) on the outer periphery of the workpiece (1), and the third one (W2) is configured to “support” the workpiece (1) by tightening the clamping cylinders (5) of the four rear jaws (B1, B2, B3, B4) on the outer periphery of the workpiece (1).
Noting the above, Figure 3 of Zhang shows an exemplary support unit having the form of the first one (2+24), second one (W1), third one (W2), fourth one (W3), and fifth one (W4). As can be seen in Figure 3, the second one (W1) of the at least three support units (2+24, W1, W2, W3, W4) includes a second cylinder (13) to support the workpiece (1) by the aforedescribed tightening step, the second cylinder (13) having a longitudinal axis and being configured to rotate around the longitudinal axis of the second cylinder (13) by actuation of a servo motor (19).
Lastly, the third one (W2) of the at least three support units (2+24, W1, W2, W3, W4) includes a third cylinder (13) to support the workpiece (1) by the aforedescribed tightening step, the third cylinder (13) having a longitudinal axis and being configured to rotate around the longitudinal axis of the third cylinder (13) by actuation of a servo motor (19).
Examiner’s Comment
A thorough search has been conducted re: the invention/claims. That being said, though no art rejections are considered to presently apply to claims 8-11, 14, 16, and 17, Examiner notes that no indication regarding the allowability of the subject matter of claims 8-11, 14, 16, and 17 with respect to the prior art is being made at this time due to the rejection(s) thereof based on 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-ATA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, particularly given that it is unclear what changes to the claims might be necessary to overcome the above-described issue(s) with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AJA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Vitale whose telephone number is (571)270-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM- 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/MICHAEL VITALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722