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 were received on 5/26/2026. These drawings are acceptable
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 was previously acknowledged.
Claim 15 was previously withdrawn (and still is) from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking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 was previously acknowledged.
Claims 12, 13, and 18 were also previously withdrawn (and still are) from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking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.
Newly submitted claim 20 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: In newly submitted claim 20, Applicant sets forth, “wherein the first cylinder is configured to be passively set in rotation by a rotation of the workpiece.” However, in previously submitted claim 7, Applicant had already claimed: “wherein the first cylinder is configured to be actively driven and the second and third cylinders are configured to be passively set in rotation by a rotation of the workpiece.” It is noted that paragraphs [0067-0068] of the specification filed on 3/6/2023 disclose the following:
[0067] …Due to the rotatability of the cylindrical contact elements 16-1, 16-2, 16-3, 16-4, the workpiece 2 can easily be set in rotation. For this purpose, one of the rotatable cylinders 16 can be actively driven, that is, set in rotation, 20 whereby the workpiece 2 is set in motion due to the friction between the cylinder 16 and the workpiece 2.
[0068] Of course, more cylinders 16, or all cylinders 16, can also be actively driven.
Noting the above, by setting forth in claim 7, “wherein the first cylinder is configured to be actively driven and the second and third cylinders ae configured to be passively set in rotation by a rotation of the workpiece,” Applicant had originally elected the combinations of the cylindrical contact elements (16-1, 16-2, 16-3, 16-4) in which the first cylinder (16-1) is actively driven and the second and third cylinders (16-2, 16-3) are passively set in rotation. As it pertains to newly submitted claim 20, it is directed to different combinations than those originally elected, because rather than the first cylinder (16-1) being actively driven, at least one of the remaining cylinders (16-2, 16-3, 16-4) would instead be actively driven. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 20 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 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 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 1-3, 5-11, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 21 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 9-10 of claim 1 state, “an axially facing annular end surface of the workpiece.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to what is meant by “an axially facing annular end surface of the workpiece.” Is Applicant setting forth that the annular end surface of the workpiece is facing an axis, for example? In other words, what is meant by “axially facing” in the context of “an axially facing annular end surface of the workpiece”?
Lines 9-12 of claim 16 state, “each of the first, second and third carriers having an end closet to the center point that is pivotably supported such that pivoting the carrier corresponding thereto moves a respective clamping cylinder toward the workpiece to clamp the workpiece with a predetermined force.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as claimed, it is unclear as to what “corresponding thereto” is intended to reference. Is, for example, “corresponding thereto” intended to reference the “end closet to the center point” that each of the claimed carriers has? Examiner suggests the following amendment so as to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: “each of the first, second and third carriers having [[an]] a respective end closet to the center point that is pivotably supported such that pivoting [[the]] of each of the first, second and third carriers the clamping cylinder corresponding thereto toward the workpiece to clamp the workpiece with a predetermined force.”
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the annular axially facing side of workpiece" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please note that in claim 1 (noting that claim 19 includes all of the limitations of claim 1), Applicant set forth, “an axially facing annular end surface of the workpiece” in lines 9-10 not “an annular axially facing side of workpiece” like in claim 19.
Lines 5, 9, and 11 of claim 1 each state, “the annular axially facing side of workpiece.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to what is meant by “the annular axially facing side of workpiece.” Is Applicant attempting to reference an axial end face of an annular workpiece?
Line 4 of claim 21 states, “an annularly axially facing end of the workpiece.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to what is meant by “an annularly axially facing end of the workpiece.” Is Applicant attempting to reference an axial end face of an annular workpiece?
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 1-3, 6, and 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 is relied upon below, and this translation was previously with the office action that mailed on 2/25/2026.
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 the 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 the 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 4-5 of claim 1 set forth therein, “at least two clamping units configured to apply a radial 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) and two front support units (W1, W4). Support unit W1 and front jaw A4, for example, combine to form a first combination, and support unit W4 and front jaw A1, for example, combine to form a second combination. Each combination (W1, A4; W4, A1) is configured to apply a radial clamping force to the workpiece (1) so as to hold the workpiece (1) in the workpiece holding device of Zhang in a predefined position. This is achieved as follows. First, a cylinder (21) of each of these two front support units (W1, W4) is extended so as to push a corresponding sliding seat (16) (see Figure 3) towards the direction of the workpiece (1). Then in each of these two front support units (W1, W4), actuating the servo motor (19) thereof (see Figure 3) drives rotation of a corresponding tightening shaft (13). In doing so, the shaft (9) of each of these two front jaws (A1, A4) is set in rotation, and a corresponding cylindrical outer surface (5) is moved toward the workpiece (1) for clamping of the workpiece (1) by applying of the radial clamping force.
Based on the foregoing, each of these combinations (W1, A4; W4, A1) constitutes an equivalent of the claimed “clamping unit.” This is because each combination (W1, A4; W4, A1) carries out the function that is specified in lines 4-5 of the claim, said function being “apply a radial clamping force to the workpiece to hold the workpiece in the workpiece holding device in a predefined position.” Also, each combination (W1, A4; W4, A1) isn’t excluded by any explicit definition provided in Applicant’s specification, and each combination (W1, A4; W4, A1) produces substantially the same result as the corresponding “clamping units [8]” of Applicant. The first combination of front support unit W1 and front jaw A4 will hereinafter be referred to as the first clamping unit (W1, A4), whilst the second combination of front support unit W4 and front jaw A1 will hereinafter be referred to by Examiner as the second (another) clamping unit (W4, A1).
Zhang, therefore, discloses at least two clamping units (W1, A4; W4, A1) configured to apply a radial clamping force to the workpiece (1) to hold the workpiece (1) in the workpiece holding device of Zhang in a predefined position.
Next, attention is again directed to Figure 1 of Zhang. The workpiece holding device further comprises two rear support units (W2, W3) and a sleeve support unit (2+24). These three support units (2+24, W2, W3) of Zhang constitute “at least three support units” that are configured to support the workpiece (1). The sleeve support unit (2+24), which hereinafter will be referred to as “the first one (2+24) of the at least three support units (2+24; W2, W3),” supports the workpiece at least by means of four rear jaws (B1, B2, B3, B4). With regards to the two rear support units (W2, W3) each is configured to “support” the workpiece (1) by carrying out a tightening step on the four rear jaws (B1, B2, B3, B4).
Regarding the first one (2+24) of the at least three support units (2+24; W2, W3), it includes a first cylinder (2). 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”/about the longitudinal axis of the first cylinder (2) by actuation of the driving motor (24) of the first one (2+24) of the at least three support units (2+24; W2, W3). Figure 5 of Zhang shows the 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 front jaw (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 front jaw (A1, A2, A3, A4) thereof/exemplary rear jaw (B1, B2, B3, B4) thereof 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 front jaw (A1, A2, A3, A4) thereof or to a rear jaw (B1, B2, B3, B4) thereof.
Attention is now drawn to Figure 2 of Zhang which shows an exemplary one of the four rear jaws (B1, B2, B3, B4) of the first cylinder (2). Figure 2 shows the first cylinder (2) as having a first cylindrical outer surface (5) (via, for example, rear jaw B1 thereof) that is configured to contact and support the workpiece (1).
Next, Examiner has annotated Figure 5 and provided it below. As can be seen therein, an “axially facing annular end surface” (as is best understood) of the workpiece (1) is contacted and is supported by the first cylindrical outer surface (5). This axially facing annular end surface is an annular end surface segment (of a first end segment) of the workpiece (1) that faces any number of axes, including, for example, a longitudinal axis of each of the rear jaws (B1, B2, B3, B4).
PNG
media_image1.png
772
1037
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, the first one (2+24) of the at least three support units (2+24; W2, W3) includes the first cylinder (2) having the first cylindrical outer surface (5) configured to contact and support the axially facing annular end surface of the workpiece (1).
Claim 2: 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: The first cylinder (2) is formed as a cylindrical friction roller. This is because the first cylinder (2) frictionally engages the workpiece (1) via each first cylindrical outer surface (5) of the four front jaws (A1, A2, A3, A4) thereof and via each first cylindrical outer surface (5) of the four rear jaws (B1, B2, B3, B4) thereof.
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 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 axis of the workpiece (1) extends horizontally in a first direction.
Next, as was advised above within the rejection of claim 1, the first cylinder (2) has series of longitudinal axes, each longitudinal axis of the series of axes corresponding to either a front jaw (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 the exemplary front jaw (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: As was stated in the rejection of claim 1, the workpiece holding device comprises at least three support units (2+24; W2, W3) including the two rear support units (W2, W3). Please be advised that the two rear support units (W2, W3) are configured to “support” the workpiece (1) by carrying out a tightening step on the four rear jaws (B1, B2, B3, B4), e.g. by tightening of the respective first cylindrical outer surface (5) of each 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 a second one (W2) of the at least three support units (2+24; W2, W3). As can be seen in Figure 3, the second one (W2) includes a second cylinder (13) configured 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, a third one (W3) of the at least three support units (2+24; W2, W3) includes a third cylinder (13) configured 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (China Publication No. CN 114042947 A) in view of Lee, Jr. (U.S. Patent No. 4,530,507 A).
Please be advised that Lee, Jr. was cited by Applicant on the IDS filed on 3/19/2016.
Claim 5: Each respective first cylindrical outer surface (5) of each of the four front and rear jaws (A1, A2, A3, A4, B1, B2, B3, B4) of the first cylinder (2) constitutes a friction surfacing. Zhang though, does not provide disclosure on each respective first cylindrical outer surface (5) being “an elastomeric or rubber friction surfacing.”
Figures 1 and 2 of Lee, Jr. though, show first cylindrical outer surfaces (50) for contacting and supporting a workpiece (16). These first cylindrical outer surfaces (50) are made out of an elastomeric material, such as rubber, polyurethane, or nylon. By being made of this elastomeric material, these first cylindrical outer surfaces (50) will be compressed against the workpiece (16) so as to absorb and dampen vibrations in the workpiece (16) from machining operations thereon [column 2, line 60 – column 3, line 2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed each respective first cylindrical outer surface (5) of each of the four front and rear jaws (A1, A2, A3, A4, B1, B2, B3, B4) of Zhang from an elastomeric material, such as rubber, polyurethane, or nylon, in accordance with the disclosure of Lee, Jr., so as to provide the workpiece holding device of Zhang with the advantage of each respective first cylindrical outer surface (5) thereof being able to be compressed against the workpiece (1) of Zhang when the workpiece (1) undergoes thermal expansion and/or contraction while the first cylindrical outer surfaces (5) contact and support said workpiece (1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the prior art and Zhang, Applicant argues the following:
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang. Zhang shows a four-jaw chuck sleeve that includes multiple adjustment components W for pressing against the cylindrical outer surface of a workpiece. However, Zhang does not include at least three support units, a first one of which: " includes a first cylinder having a first cylindrical outer surface configured to contact and support an annular axially facing end surface of the workpiece, the first cylinder having a longitudinal axis and being configured to rotate around the longitudinal axis of the first cylinder" as recited in amended claim 1. Support for the amendment to claim 1 can be found, for example, in Figure 2. Zhang does not show or suggest at least the limitations of the last paragraph of claim 1, and it is therefore respectfully submitted that amended claim 1 is not anticipated by Zhang. Furthermore, nothing in the record suggests to modify Zhang in a manner that would result in the invention of claim 1. Claim 1 is therefore also submitted to patentably distinguish over Zhang.
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but is not persuasive.
First, attention is directed to Figure 1 of Zhang. The workpiece holding device comprises two rear support units (W2, W3) and a sleeve support unit (2+24). These three support units (2+24, W2, W3) of Zhang constitute “at least three support units” that are configured to support the workpiece (1). The sleeve support unit (2+24), which hereinafter will be referred to by Examiner as “the first one (2+24) of the at least three support units (2+24; W2, W3),” supports the workpiece at least by means of four rear jaws (B1, B2, B3, B4).
Regarding the first one (2+24) of the at least three support units (2+24; W2, W3), it includes a first cylinder (2). 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”/about the longitudinal axis of the first cylinder (2) by actuation of the driving motor (24) of the first one (2+24) of the at least three support units (2+24; W2, W3). Figure 5 of Zhang shows the 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 front jaw (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 front jaw (A1, A2, A3, A4) thereof/exemplary rear jaw (B1, B2, B3, B4) thereof 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 front jaw (A1, A2, A3, A4) thereof or to a rear jaw (B1, B2, B3, B4) thereof.
Attention is now drawn to Figure 2 of Zhang which shows an exemplary one of the four rear jaws (B1, B2, B3, B4) of the first cylinder (2). Figure 2 shows the first cylinder (2) as having a first cylindrical outer surface (5) (via, for example, rear jaw B1 thereof) that is configured to contact and support the workpiece (1). Next, Figure 5 has been annotated and provided it below.
PNG
media_image1.png
772
1037
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As can be seen above, an “axially facing annular end surface” (as is best understood) of the workpiece (1) is contacted and is supported by the first cylindrical outer surface (5). This axially facing annular end surface is an annular end surface segment (of a first end segment) of the workpiece (1) that faces any number of axes, including, for example, a longitudinal axis of each of the rear jaws (B1, B2, B3, B4). Thus, the first one (2+24) of the at least three support units (2+24; W2, W3) includes the first cylinder (2) having the first cylindrical outer surface (5) configured to contact and support the axially facing annular end surface of the workpiece (1).
For the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11, 14, 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.
Claims 16, 17, and 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Makkonen (Finland Publication No. FI 123763 B) shows in Figures 1 and 2 a workpiece holding device (100) for holding a workpiece (106). These figures show the workpiece holding device (100) as comprising at least two clamping unit (102) that are configured to apply a radial clamping force to the workpiece (106) to hold the workpiece (106) in the workpiece holding device (100) in a predefined position, and further comprising at least three support units (102a) that are configured to support the workpiece (106).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights