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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a finished product” in line 3 should be corrected as --[[a]]the finished product--. 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 2-5 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “multi-divided jaws”, and the claim also recites “3-jaw” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, “multi-divided jaws (3-jaws)” is interpreted as --multi-divided jaws [[(3-jaws)]]--.
Claims 3-5 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takayuki (JP 2012-101345 A).
Regarding claim 1, Takayuki (‘345) discloses a device (fig2) for automatically fixing a workpiece, the device comprising: a jig base 1 (first paragraph under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS) provided in one side of a device table 13 (first paragraph under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, “a base member 13”), and forming a place where the workpiece W (“a work piece W”, first paragraph under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS) is placed and fixed to be machined into a finished product; a hole clamp 2,3 (first paragraph under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, “a clamp rod 3, a grip member 2”) coupled to the jig base 1 (fig2) and inserted into a hole H (fig2) formed in the workpiece W placed on the jig base 1 to selectively clamp the hole H (figs2,5); and a clamp driving portion 41 (ninth paragraph under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, “a piston member 41”) provided on the device table, connected to the hole clamp 2,3 (fig2), and driving the hole clamp 2,3 to clamp or unclamp the hole H of the workpiece W (figs2,5, ninth paragraph under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS).
Regarding claim 2, Takayuki discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the hole clamp comprises: a clamp shaft 3 (first paragraph under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, fig2, “a clamp rod”) arranged on the jig base 1 (fig2) in a direction in which the workpiece W is placed and having a cross-sectional area differing in a lengthwise direction (the clamp shaft 3 comprises three parts 31,32,33 have different cross-sectional areas, fig2, eighth paragraph under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS); and multi-divided jaws 22 (“four grip forming members”, fig4, fourth paragraph under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS) arranged in a circumferential direction of the clamp shaft 3, moving radially outward or inward based on an up/down movement operation of the clamp shaft 3 by an operation of the clamp driving portion 41, and fixing a position of the workpiece W when moving radially outward (fig5).
Regarding claim 8, Takayuki discloses the device of claim 1, further comprising an adhesion degree detection portion (17th and 18th paragraph under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, “detects that the lower surface of the workpiece W is in close contact with the seating surface 18 in a state where the workpiece W is clamped”) that is provided in a region of the jig base 1, and before a machining work of the workpiece W is performed, detects a degree of adhesion of the workpiece to the jig base 1.
Regarding claim 9, Takayuki discloses the device of claim 8, wherein the adhesion degree detection portion comprises: an air leakage hole 18a (17th paragraph under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, “an air ejection hole 18a”) formed in the jig base 1 in a direction in which the workpiece W is placed on the jig base 1 (fig2); an air supply portion 54-57 (17th paragraph under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS) supplying air to the air leakage hole 18a; and an air discharge amount detection sensor 57 (17th first paragraph under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, “the pressure switch 57 … detecting that the pressure of the pressurized air is increased to a set pressure or higher”) detecting an amount of air discharged through the air leakage hole 18a.
Regarding claim 10, Takayuki discloses the device of claim 9, wherein the adhesion degree detection portion further comprises a controller 70 (18th paragraph under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS) that is configured to control an operation of a machine tool that machines the workpiece W, to be forcibly stopped, based on a sensing signal of the air discharge amount detection sensor 57.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayuki (JP 2012-101345 A) in view of Chupick (US 6,241,228 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Takayuki discloses the device of claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose a use of a positioning pin. Chupick (‘228) teaches a use of a positioning pin 16 (col.5 line2) coupled to a jig base 14 (fig11) around a hole clamp 12 (col.5 lines1-2, fig11) and performing positioning a relative location of a workpiece with respect to the jig base 14 when the workpiece is placed on the jig base 14 (col.5 lines5-7,9-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takayuki to use a positioning pin, as taught by Chupick, for the purpose of locating a workpiece.
Regarding claim 7, Takayuki discloses the device of claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose a use of a guide pin and a guide driving portion. Chupick (‘228) teaches a use of a guide pin 122 (col.5 lines1-2) arranged on a jig base 14 (fig11) to be capable of moving up/down around a hole clamp 12 (col.5 lines1-2), and guiding a movement of a workpiece with respect to the jig base (with a help of an element 16, col.5 lines5-7,9-11); and a guide driving portion (via a hydraulic cylinder 42, the hole clamp and the guide pin use same driving portion for up and down movement), connected to the guide pin 122, and driving the guide pin 122 up/down. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takayuki to use a guide pin and a guide driving portion, as taught by Chupick, for the purpose of locating a workpiece.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayuki (JP 2012-101345 A) in view of Kang (KR 2017-0015090 A).
Regarding claims 11-12, Takayuki discloses the device of claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose a use of a workpiece pressing unit. Kang (‘090) teaches a use of a workpiece pressing unit 8 (“Pressure device 8”, fig2) comprising a workpiece pressing block 87 (fig2) substantially contacting a workpiece and pressing the workpiece (figs10-11) and a block up/down driving portion 84,85 (fig2) connected to the workpiece pressing block 87 (fig2) and driving the workpiece pressing block up/down (figs10-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takayuki to use a pressing unit, as taught by Kang, for the purpose of straightening a workpiece.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayuki (JP 2012-101345 A) in view of Hyun (KR 2001-0064570 A).
Regarding claims 13-14, Takayuki discloses the device of claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose a use of a workpiece cleaning unit. Hyun (‘570) teaches a use of a workpiece cleaning unit cleaning the workpiece by blowing air toward the workpiece 80 (fig4, last fig), wherein the workpiece cleaning unit comprises an air supply pipe 120 (abstract) and a plurality of air nozzles 100 (abstract) provided in the air supply pipe 120 and blowing the air flowing in the air supply pipe toward the workpiece (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takayuki to use a workpiece cleaning unit, as taught by Hyun, for the purpose of cleaning any dust or cut particles from a workpiece.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 15-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The subject matter of the claim(s) could either not be found or was not suggested in the prior art of record.
The subject matter of claim 3 not found was a use of a reduced diameter section part, an enlarged diameter section part arranged apart from the reduced diameter section part having a cross-sectional area greater than a cross-sectional area of the reduced diameter section part, a slope connection section connecting the reduced diameter section part and the enlarged diameter section part, a straight line wall part of each of the multi-divided jaws in contact with the reduced diameter section part and an inclined line wall part of the each of the multi-divided jaws in contact with the slope connection section; in combination with the limitations set forth in claim 3 and any of its intervening claims of the instant invention.
Claims 4-5 depend on claim 3.
The subject matter of claim 15 not found was a use of a mounting plate moving portion connected to the unit mounting plate, and moving the unit mounting plate on the device table; in combination with the limitations set forth in claim 158 and any of its intervening claims of the instant invention.
Claims 16-17 depend on claim 15.
The subject matter of claim 18 not found was a use of a base cover covering a top portion of the device table, except the jig base; in combination with the limitations set forth in claim 18 and any of its intervening claims of the instant invention.
Claim 19 depends on claim 18.
None of the prior arts of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, teaches or renders obvious the allowable subject matter of the instant invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm ET.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723