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 .
Status
In response to the amendment filed on 10/28/2025, claims 1 and 4 have been amended, and claims 3 and 6 are cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are pending and under examination.
Regarding the priority status that Examiner stated in the previous non-final rejection office action dated on 07/28/2025, Applicant responses in the Applicant Arguments/Remarks dated on 10/28/2025 that Applicant has filed a petition to revive the parent application 17/447269. The petition has not been completed yet; thus the effective filing date of the instant application is still 03/21/2023.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 10/28/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the term may be amended as “a surface of an arm end” in line 5, the phrase may be amended as “the movable jaw has [[2]]two symmetr[[y]]ical arms, which has a circular connecting end on each arm; the circular connecting end of the each arm matches and works with the wall of the arc-shaped notch” in line 9-10, the term may be amended as “[[the]]a matching position” in line 17.
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, 2, 4, and 5 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.
In claim 1, line 5, the phrase “an arc-shaped notch with a half circular strong wall” renders claim vague and indefinite. The term “strong wall” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes examiner has interpreted the arc-shaped notch has the half circular wall on surface of an arm end.
In claim 1, lines 12-13, the phrase “the circular connecting end is provided with a spherical or semi-spherical convex structure inside, which matches and works with the groove …” renders claim vague and indefinite. The inside of the movable jaw is not defined; thus it is not clear where the convex structure needs to be disposed. For examination purposes examiner has interpreted one end of the movable clamp jaw near the circular connecting end is the inside.
Claims 2, 4, and 5 inherit the above deficiency by nature of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strauss et al. (US 7984895, hereinafter Strauss).
Regarding claim 1, Strauss discloses, in figs. 1 and 4, a ratchet woodworking clamp (bar clamp 10) with two universal adaptive clamp jaws (fig. 2, two jaws on each of a movable jaw assembly 12 and a fixed jaw assembly 22), comprising
a fixed clamp arm (fixed jaw assembly 22) and a movable clamp arm (movable jaw assembly 12),
the fixed clamp arm and the movable clamp arm being both provided with an arc-shaped notch with a half circular strong wall built on surface of an arm end (see a notch in annotated Strauss fig. 4 below. See also 112(b) rejection regarding the strong wall), and the arc-shaped notch matches and works with a movable clamp jaw (annotated Strauss fig. 4 below, the jaw 104 is coupled to the notch, and the jaw rotates pivotably), wherein,
a middle portion of the arc-shaped notch is provided with a semi-spherical or spherical groove recessed inwardly (annotated Strauss fig. 4 below, pin 108 is part of the movable jaw assembly 12. It is disposed in the middle of the notch and it has a spherical groove),
the movable jaw has 2 symmetry arms, which has circular connecting end on each arm; each arm circular end matches and works with wall of the arc-shaped notch, and the circular connecting end is provided with a spherical or semi-spherical convex structure inside, which matches and works with the groove in the middle portion of the arc-shaped notch (see annotated Strauss fig. 4 below, the movable clamp jaw has a pair of symmetric arms, and an end of each arm comprises a circular connecting end. The circular connecting end has a semi-spherical structure. The semi-spherical structure of the connecting end is connected to the wall of the arc-shaped notch and the groove disposed in the middle portion of the notch when the jaw rotates as shown in fig. 3. As discussed in 112(b) rejection, the inside is not defined);
a clamp jaw pad is mounted on the other side of the movable clamp jaw (annotated Strauss fig. 4 below, pad 117 is mounted on the jaw 104 on a side where it may make a contact with a wooden block to clamp it); and
the movable clamp jaw, together with the clamp jaw pad mounted thereon, is capable of freely rotating around the matching position between the semi-spherical groove and the semi-spherical convex structure (see annotated Strauss fig. 3 below, the connecting end of the movable clamp jaw with the pad 117 rotates around a matching position between the groove and the convex structure).
PNG
media_image1.png
814
1204
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Strauss Figure 4
PNG
media_image2.png
686
919
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Strauss Figure 3
Regarding claim 2, Strauss discloses the ratchet woodworking clamp with the two universal adaptive clamp jaws as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein a gap exists between the movable clamp jaw and a periphery of the arc-shaped notch (see annotated Strauss fig. 3 above, a gap exists between the jaw 104 and a periphery of the notch because the flange 106 can rotate about the pin 108 of the notch).
Regarding claim 4, Strauss discloses the ratchet woodworking clamp with the two universal adaptive clamp jaws as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein a surface of the clamp jaw pad is provided with an anti-skid structure (col. 4, ln 33-38, pad 117 is a relatively soft pad which can function as an anti-skid structure).
Regarding claim 5, Strauss discloses the ratchet woodworking clamp with the two universal adaptive clamp jaws as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein side surfaces of the fixed clamp arm and the movable clamp arm are provided with a reinforcing rib, and the reinforcing ribs are distributed in an arc shape (see annotated Strauss fig. 16 below. The jaw assemblies 12, 22 have reinforcing frames and the frames are curved or arc-shaped).
PNG
media_image3.png
659
944
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Strauss Figure 16
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Strauss does not explicitly disclose the semi-spherical protrusion and the groove. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Strauss discloses an end of the flange 106 includes a semi-spherical protrusion and a center of the pin 108 has a groove. They are not the exactly same structures as the recited elements; however, those elements of Strauss can be defined as the recited elements of the instant application. Please see the annotated Strauss figures.
Applicant further argues distinctive features of the present application are not disclosed by Strauss.
Applicant asserts the present application discloses the semi-spherical groove 201 provided in the middle of the fixed clamp arm 1 is recessed inward, and the semi-spherical convex structure 301 is provided on the movable clamp 3. The semi-spherical convex structure is engaged with the semi-spherical groove to allows the fixed clamp arm 1 and the movable clamp jaw 3 to rotate freely around the matching position of the semi-spherical convex structure and the semi-spherical groove. Applicant continues asserting that due to the recited structures, the arm 1 and the jaw 3 can rotate freely around the matching position while the jaw of Strauss swivels about the pin.
As Examiners mentioned above, the elements of Strauss may not be arranged and may not work exactly the same way as the present application. However, as discussed in the 112(b) rejection and rejection of claim 1, the location of inside is not defined. In applying broadest reasonable interpretation of claim limitations, the inside of the jaw can be defined as Examiner describes in the annotated Strauss fig. 4 above, and the recited verbs “matches and works” can be interpreted as two elements are connected or closely located with each other when the clamp jaw rotates or swivels. Thus, Strauss discloses the convex structure of the flange/arm 106 is connected with the pin 108 having the recess when the clamp jaw rotates around the matching position of the pin 108 and the arm. Therefore, the elements of Strauss read on the claim languages. In addition, the phrase “freely rotating around the matching position” does not distinguish between the rotation about the pin and the intended rotation with a high degree of freedom.
Applicant asserts another distinctive feature of the present application is that there are two connection structures with the present application; 1) the engagement of the semi-spherical groove 201 and the semi-spherical convex structure 301, and 2) the engagement of the arc-shaped notch 2 and the outer edge of the movable clamp jaw 3. On the contrary, Strauss discloses only the engagement of the arch-shaped notch and the arc-shaped outer edge (or convex structure) of the movable clamp jaw. Because of the lack of definition of the term inside, however, Examiner has defined the outer edge of the clamp jaw is the semi-spherical convex structure. Therefore, the convex structure is coupled to both the notch and the groove when the clamp jaw rotates around the matching position. As Examiner states repeatedly the elements of Strauss are not exactly the same as the elements of the present application. However, they read on the claim languages because a part of claim limitations is uncertain.
Examiner advises amending claim languages, especially “inside” and “matches and works” related to the arrangement between the groove and the convex structure.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MAHDI H NEJAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723