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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites in:
line 3 which step has a “step head having a sensor on its end face”. However, the metes and bound of where the sensor is, are unclear. Where exactly “its end face” refers to? To what structural element “its” refers to? Where is this “end face” located at? In relation to what it is considered as being “end” face? Further clarification is needed.
Lines 5-6 that “a threaded bore is formed, in each instance, on the opposite longitudinal sides of the step head”. However, the way these limitations have been set forth is unclear. What does “in each instance” mean? Instance of what? Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the opposite longitudinal sides” of the step head, as no opposite longitudinal sides of the step head, have been previously introduced in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear in relation to what are these longitudinal sides located at? Further clarification is needed.
Lines 8-9 “the fastening leg of the clamping insert, which leg is assigned to the longitudinal side, and wherein on each side, the longitudinal axes of the threaded” bore. First, since claim 1 recites in line 4 that there are two fastening legs, it is unclear to which leg “the fastening leg” of the clamping insert on line 8, it is referring to. Second, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “which leg is assigned to the longitudinal side, and wherein on each side, the longitudinal axes”. Which one leg? “Assigned”, in what sense? Third, there is insufficient antecedent basis for each of “the longitudinal side” and “the longitudinal axes” since no “longitudinal side” and no “longitudinal axes” have been previously introduced in the claim. Fourth, it is unclear if “each side” refers to “each longitudinal side” or to another “side”. For clarity and prevent confusion, consistent language is needed throughout the claim. Further clarification is needed.
Lines 10-11 that the longitudinal axes of the threaded bore and of the passage opening “assigned to it have an offset when the base leg rests against the end face”. However, it is unclear in what sense “assigned to it” refers to. The term “it” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what “it” refers to. “Offset” in relation to what? What element is offset? The term “when” renders the claim indefinite as it is considered a conditional clause and thus it is unclear what will happen when the condition of the base leg resting against the end face, is not met. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 3 recites in line 3 “the base” of the jaw step. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the base” of the jaw step, since no “base” of the jaw step has been previously introduced in either claim 3 or claim 1 from which claim 3 directly depends. Further clarification is needed. Furthermore, the term “console” in console radius as set forth in line 2 is unclear. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 4 recites in:
Line 2 “the two sides” of the step head. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the two sides” of the step head, since no “two sides” of the step head has been previously introduced in either claim 4, claim 3 or claim 1 from which claim 4 directly depends. It is unclear if these two sides are “the opposite longitudinal sides of the step head” as set forth in line 6 of claim 1, or not. Further clarification is needed.
Line 3 “in each instance, offset in the direction of the end face”. However, the way these limitations have been set forth is unclear. What does “in each instance” mean? Instance of what? Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the direction of the end face”, as no direction of the end face, have been previously introduced in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear from where to where is this direction taken from and how it is being defined? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 5 recites in lines 3-4 “a console angle from the outside to the inside, relative to the longitudinal axis”. First, the term “console” in console angle is unclear. What exactly is catalogued as “a console angle”? Second, the phrase “from the outside to the inside, relative to the longitudinal axis” is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of “the outside”; “the inside” and “the longitudinal axis”, since no outside; inside; or longitudinal axis has been previously introduced in the claims. Furthermore, where is this outside and this inside located at? Outside and inside of what? Longitudinal axis of what? Further clarification is needed.
Regarding claim 6, 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 6 recites the broad recitation “between 7° and 12°”, and the claim also recites “in particular 10°” 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.
Claim 7 recites in line 2 “the side of the base leg”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the side” of the base leg, since no “side” of the base leg has been previously introduced in the claims. The term “console” in both “clamping insert console angle” of line 3 and “console angle” of line 4 is unclear. What exactly is catalogued as “a console angle”?
Claim 8 in its entirety is unclear and thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. What exactly is defined as “a clamping insert that requires turning out is made available together with a countersunk screw”? Furthermore, “in which insert the passage opening has a conical surface as a countersunk bore on the outside” is unclear. What insert? The outside of what? There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the outside” since no “outside” has been previously introduced in the claims. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 9 recites in lines 2-3 “the longitudinal axis determined by the conical surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the longitudinal axis” since no “longitudinal axis” determined by the conical surface has been previously introduced in the claims. Furthermore, it is unclear how “the longitudinal axis of the related threaded bore has a center offset”. Related in what way? Offset in relation to what? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 10 recites in line 4 “a double recess is formed in every throat”. It is unclear what “every throat” refers to. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 11 recites in line 3 “the circumference”, which has insufficient antecedent basis for “the circumference” since no “circumference” has been previously set forth in the claims. The circumference of what? Further clarification is needed.
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(s) 1-7, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2019 109 856 (hereafter—DE’856--), as best understood in view of the 112 2nd issues as aforementioned.
In regards to claim 1, DE’856 discloses a clamping jaw (4, Figure 8) for a chuck (1), having a jaw body (6) on which at least one jaw step (7 and 9) is formed, which step has a step head (7) having a sensor (25) on its end face (9), for holding a clamping insert (10) that is formed from a base leg (21) and two fastening legs (each of 22) that project away from the base leg (21), characterized in that wherein a bore (see Figure 8 and refer to the bores where screws are being inserted) is formed, in each instance, on the opposite longitudinal sides of the step head (7), to hold a fastening screw (see screw in Figure 8), the screw head of which is held in a passage opening that is formed in the fastening leg (22) of the clamping insert (10), which leg is assigned to the longitudinal side, and that wherein on each side, the longitudinal axes of the bore and of the passage opening assigned to it have an offset when the base leg (21) rests against the end face (9). (In view of the 112 2nd issues aforementioned, the intended use limitations “the longitudinal axes of the threaded bore and of the passage opening assigned to it have an offset when the base leg rests against the end face” it is noted that the prior art used in the rejection is capable of being used for this function. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations”, if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) See MPEP 2114. Since as in Figures 8 and 11, the passage opening on legs 22 is oblong, then there is offset between each of the threaded bore and passage opening when the base leg rests against the end face.)
Although there is a suggestion in DE’856 that threaded screws are inserted into a threaded bore of the longitudinal sides of the step head (Figures 8 and 11), this is not explicitly disclosed.
Nevertheless, the Examiner takes Official Notice on the fact that threaded screws inserted into a threaded bore are well known in the art to provide more secure and stable clamping connection between elements. Therefore, the examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the Applicant's invention was filed, to modify DE’856's screw and bore to be threaded so as to provide a more secure and stable clamping connection between elements.
In regards to claim 2, DE’856 as modified discloses the clamping jaw according to claim 1, DE’856 as modified also discloses that the fastening screws (see Figure 8) are formed as cylinder screws having a cylindrical screw head (see Figure 8).
In regards to claim 3, DE’856 as modified discloses the clamping jaw according to claim 1, DE’856 as modified also discloses an undercut (in the same way as presented by Applicant, see undercut in Figures 8, 15 and 16) having a console radius is formed below the step head (7) on the base of the jaw step (7 and 9).
In regards to claim 4, DE’856 as modified discloses the clamping jaw according to claim 3, DE’856 as modified also discloses a groove (8) is formed on the two sides of the step head (7), in each instance, offset in the direction of the end face, relative to the threaded bores, which groove runs parallel to the end face (in the same way as presented by Applicant, see Figure 15).
In regards to claim 5, DE’856 as modified discloses the clamping jaw (4) according to claim 1, DE’856 as modified also discloses that the end face (9) on the step head (7) runs inclined by a console angle from the outside to the inside, relative to the longitudinal axis (in the same way as presented by Applicant, see Figure 15).
In regards to claim 6, DE’856 as modified discloses the clamping jaw (4) according to claim 5, DE’856 as modified also discloses the console angle.
Nevertheless, DE’856 fails to explicitly disclose that the console angle amounts to between 7° and 12°, in particular 10°.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicant’s invention was filed to have the console angle amounts to between 7° and 12°, in particular 10°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum range/value or workable ranges involves only routing skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233/ In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
In regards to claim 7, DE’856 as modified discloses the clamping jaw (4) according to claim 5, DE’856 as modified also discloses that the side of the base leg (22) of the clamping insert (10) that faces the end face (9) runs at an incline with a clamping insert console angle (in the same way as presented by Applicant, see Figure 10).
However, DE’856 fails to explicitly disclose that the clamping insert console angle is 0.20° to 0.50° smaller than the console angle.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicant’s invention was filed to have the console angle and clamping insert console angle as desired, such as having the clamping insert console angle be 0.20° to 0.50° smaller than the console angle, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum range or workable ranges involves only routing skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 10, DE’856 as modified discloses the clamping jaw (4) according to claim 1, DE’856 as modified also discloses a guide strip (in the same way as presented by Applicant, see guide strip in Figure 8) that is T- shaped in cross-section is formed on the jaw body (6), in which strip an undercut having a double recess is formed in every throat (in the same way as presented by Applicant, see undercut with double recess in every throat, as in Figure 8).
In regards to claim 11, DE’856 as modified discloses the clamping jaw (4) according to claim 1, DE’856 as modified also discloses a chuck (1) having a chuck body (2), in which the clamping jaws (4) are arranged in radial jaw guides (3) uniformly distributed over the circumference (see Figures 1-6).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2019 109 856 (hereafter—DE’856--) as best understood in view of the 112 2nd issues as aforementioned, as applied to claim 1 above and in view of FR 2 523 884 (hereafter—FR’940--).
In regards to claim 8, DE’856 as modified discloses the clamping jaw (4) according to claim 1, DE’856 as modified also discloses a clamping insert (10) that requires turning out is made available together with a counterbore screw, in which insert the passage opening has a cylindrical surface as a counterbore on the outside.
However, DE’856 fails to disclose that the counterbore screw is a countersunk screw and that the passage opening has having a conical surface as a countersunk bore.
Nevertheless, FR’940 teaches that to have a cylindrical screw head be countersunk screw within a countersunk bore, prevents the screw to protrude and thus cause any unwanted interference (see page 5 of Machine Translation Attached).
Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, would have found it obvious to modify the shape of the head of the screw and of the passage opening to be countersunk, to prevent any screw protrusion and thus cause any unwanted interference, based on the teachings of FR’940.
In regards to claim 9, DE’856 as modified discloses the clamping jaw (4) according to claim 8, DE’856 as modified also discloses that the longitudinal axis determined by the conical surface (on DE’856 as modified by FR’940) and the longitudinal axis of the related threaded bore (of DE’856) has have a center offset (as presented by Applicant).
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mischler US 1,799,019 in view of DE 10 2019 109 856 (hereafter—DE’856--), as best understood in view of the 112 2nd issues as aforementioned.
In regards to claim 1, Mischler discloses a clamping jaw (Figure 1) for a chuck (16, Figure 5), having a jaw body (1) on which at least one jaw step is formed, which step has a step head (11,12) having an end face (entire face where spring 13 is disposed at), for holding a clamping insert (6) that is formed from a base leg (bottom portion of U shaped insert 6) and two fastening legs (refer to legs of U shaped insert 6, where passage openings 7 are disposed at) that project away from the base leg (see Figure 2), characterized in that wherein a threaded bore (see Figure 2, refer to bores where screws 5 are threaded into) is formed, in each instance, on the opposite longitudinal sides of the step head (see Figure 2), to hold a fastening screw (see screws 9 in Figure 2), the screw head (10) of which is held in a passage opening (7) that is formed in the fastening leg of the clamping insert (6), which leg is assigned to the longitudinal side, and that wherein on each side, the longitudinal axes of the bore and of the passage opening assigned to it have an offset when the base leg rests against the end face (see Figure 1, and note the offset between the longitudinal axis of the screw and the longitudinal axis of the passage opening 7). (In view of the 112 2nd issues aforementioned, the intended use limitations “the longitudinal axes of the threaded bore and of the passage opening assigned to it have an offset when the base leg rests against the end face” it is noted that the prior art used in the rejection is capable of being used for this function. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations”, if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) See MPEP 2114. Since as in Figure 1, the passage opening on legs is oblong, then there is offset between each of the threaded bore and passage opening when the base leg rests against the end face.)
However, Mischler fails to disclose that the step head (12) has a sensor (25) on its end face.
Nevertheless, DE’856 teaches that it is well known in the art, to have a clamping jaw (4, Figure 8) for a chuck (1), having a jaw body (6) on which at least one jaw step (7 and 9) is formed, which step has a step head (7) having a sensor (25) on its end face (9). By having the sensor on the end face, clamping force is detected at a clamping point and acting clamping force can be measured.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to modify Mischler’s step head, so as to include a sensor on its end face, based on the teachings of DE’856 to accurately detect clamping forces at a clamping force and thus measure acting clamping forces.
In regards to claim 2, Mischler as modified discloses the clamping jaw according to claim 1, Mischler as modified also discloses that the fastening screws (9) are formed as cylinder screws having a cylindrical screw head (10, see Figure 3).
In regards to claim 3, Mischler as modified discloses the clamping jaw according to claim 1, Mischler as modified also discloses an undercut (see Figure 4) having a console radius is formed below the step head on the base of the jaw step (see Figure 4 and refer con the concave curve between 4 and 3).
In regards to claim 4, Mischler as modified discloses the clamping jaw according to claim 3, Mischler as modified also discloses a groove (5) is formed on the two sides of the step head (see Figure 2), in each instance, offset in the direction of the end face (see Figure 2 and note that grooves 5 are offset from end face), relative to the threaded bores (where 9 are threaded into), which groove runs parallel to the end face (see Figure 2 and 4 and note that grooves 5 run parallel to end face).
In regards to claim 8, Mischler as modified discloses the clamping jaw according to claim 1, Mischler as modified also discloses a clamping insert (6) that requires turning out is made available together with a counterbore screw, in which insert the passage opening has a surface as a counterbore on the outside.
However, Mischler fails to disclose that the counterbore screw is a countersunk screw and that the passage opening has having a conical surface as a countersunk bore.
Nevertheless, the Examiner takes Official Notice on the fact that countersunk threaded screws inserted into a countersunk bore are well known in the art to provide more secure and stable clamping connection between elements, by preventing the screw to protrude and thus cause any unwanted interference between parts. Therefore, the examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the Applicant's invention was filed, to modify Mischler’s screw and bore to be countersunk so as to provide a more secure and stable clamping connection between elements, by preventing the screw to protrude and thus cause any unwanted interference between parts.
In regards to claim 9, Mischler as modified discloses the clamping jaw according to claim 8, Mischler as modified also discloses that the longitudinal axis determined by the conical surface (on Mischler as modified) and the longitudinal axis of the related threaded bore (of Mischler) has have a center offset (as presented by Applicant).
In regards to claim 11, Mischler as modified discloses the clamping jaw according to claim 1, Mischler as modified also discloses a chuck (16) having a chuck body (see Figure 5), in which the clamping jaws (Figure 1) are arranged in radial jaw guides (where screws 2 are disposed at, when jaw is clamped to chuck 16) uniformly distributed over the circumference (see Figure 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE N RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5134. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:00 am -5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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) 272-3460. 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.
/NICOLE N RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722