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 .
Specification
The disclosure as filed on 03/07/24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 10, after line 5, add the heading “BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S)”.
Page 11, before the paragraph starting on line 8, add the heading “DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, Line 2, before “two brake elements” add “the at least one brake element (34) includes”
Claim 13, Line 1, before “locking device”, replace “a” with “the”
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 1-14 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 appears to lack any use of a transition phrase in the form of “comprising”, “consisting of” or “consisting essentially of”. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to what constitutes the metes and bounds of the invention being recited? For purposes of examination, the examiner assumes that claims 1-14 mean to use the term “comprising” when describing the metes and bounds of the claims. Furtehrmore, the lack of a transition phrase in claim 1 leaves it indefinite and unclear as to what elements are actually part of the “locking device” attempting to be claimed?
Claim 1 recites the phrase “basic jaws”. However, it is indefinite and unclear as to what is meant by the term “basic”? Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). To overcome this rejection, the phrase “can be” should be replaced with something similar to “configured to be”.
Claim 3 recites “two toothed rack portions (36)”. However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “two toothed rack portions (36)” as recited in claim 3 relate to the singular “a toothed rack portion (36)” as recited in claim 2? To overcome this rejection, the examiner recommends replacing the phrase “a toothed rack portion (36)” in claim 2 with “at least one toothed rack portion (36)”; and replacing the phrase “two toothed rack portions (36)” in claim 3 with something similar to “the at least one toothed rack portion (36) including two toothed rack portions (36)”.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "can" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). To overcome this rejection, the phrase “can” should be replaced with something similar to “configured to”.
Claim 6 recites “the brake element (34) is designed as a wedge fork (82) with two wedge surfaces (76) …” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “a wedge fork (82) with two wedge surfaces (76) …” relates to the previously recited claim elements of the “wedge finger (74) and a wedge surface (76)” as previously recited in claim 5, which claim 6 depends upon? Clarification within the claims is required.
Claim 7 recites “wedges surfaces (76) …” However, multiple wedge surfaces were actually introduced within claim 6 and not claim 5, which claim 7 depends upon. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to whether claim 7 is meant to depend upon claim 5 or 6?
Claim 11 recites “a first brake piston (48)”, and “a second brake piston (50)”. However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “a first brake piston (48)”, and the “a second brake piston (50)” relate to the previously recited “at least one brake piston (46, 48)” as previously recited in claim 10? I.e., are they the same or different claim elements? Clarification is required within claim 11. Additionally, claim 11 references “the spring element”; wherein it is indefinite and unclear as to whether claim 11 is reciting a single or multiple of “the spring element” as there are multiple of the brake pistons recited?
Claim 11 recites “that the second brake piston (50) faces the spring element (58) and the first brake piston (48) faces away from the spring element (58) …” However, it indefinite and unclear as to what is meant by “face” as pistons themselves do not have inherent “faces”, and the disclosure as filed has not clearly identified a “face” of the pistons.
Claim 12 recites “the partition wall (62) …” However, the term “the partition wall (62) …” is previously recited in claim 11 and thus it is indefinite and unclear as to whether claim 12 is meant to depend upon claim 10 or claim 11?
Claim 14 appears to recite several elements such as “working piston (16)”, “coupling portion (20)”, etc. However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how these elements relate to the “locking device” itself?
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). To overcome this rejection, the phrase “can be” should be replaced with something similar to “configured to be”.
Claim 14 recites “a coupling member (22, 26)”, and “an axis of rotation (24)”. However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how each of the “a coupling member (22, 26)”, and the “an axis of rotation (24)” of claim 14 relate to the previously recited “a coupling member” and “an axis of rotation” as recited in claim 1? I.e., are they the same or different claim elements?
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.
(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.
As best understood in view of the 112 rejections above, claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 9, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019/081229 (Fellhauer et al.).
The examiner notes that the claims do not require that the “clamping apparatus” additionally includes the “working pistons (16)” as seen in the current application. Therefore, prior art devices having “working pistons” could be said to also function as “brakes” as they control the speed and movement of the jaws themselves by interacting with a coupling member.
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 13, and 14, Fellhauer et al. teaches: Claim 1 - a locking device (embodiment of Figures 1-6) for a gripping or clamping apparatus (10) having two basic jaws (16) that can be moved closer to and away from one another, with a coupling member (30) which is movably coupled or can be movably coupled to the basic jaws (16) and is arranged so as to be rotatable about an axis of rotation (34), wherein the coupling member (30) has a brake portion (32) on its lateral surface, and with at least one brake element (24) which can be displaced along a locking direction running perpendicular to the axis of rotation (34) from a release position into a locking position in order to fix the coupling member (30), characterized in that that the brake element (24) engages tangentially on the brake portion (32) during displacement into the locking position, (Figures 1-6); Claim 2 - characterized in that the brake portion (32) is designed as a pinion (32) and that the brake element (24) has a toothed rack portion (26) which interacts with the pinion (32) in the locking position and engages tangentially on the pinion (32), (Figures 1-6); Claim 4 - characterized in that the brake portion (32) is designed as a rotationally symmetrical lateral surface (this phrase does not make it clear that the surface is in the shape of element (26) as seen in Figures 5 and 6 of the current application) and that the brake element (24) engages tangentially on the lateral surface in the locking position, (Figures 1-6); Claim 9 - characterized in that two brake elements (24) are provided, which are arranged in a point-symmetrical manner with respect to the axis of rotation (34) or in a mirror-symmetrical manner with respect to a plane running perpendicular to the locking direction, (Figures 1-6); Claim 13 - a gripping or clamping apparatus (10) comprising a locking device (Figures 1-6) according to claim 1, (Figures 1-6); Claim 14 - characterized in that two basic jaws (16) which can be moved closer to and away from one another are provided, wherein the basic jaws (16) are each movably coupled to at least one working piston (14) delimiting a working pressure chamber, wherein the working pistons (14) each provide a coupling portion (24) which is movably coupled to a coupling member (30) which is arranged so as to be rotatable about an axis of rotation (34), wherein the coupling member (30) of the gripping or clamping apparatus (12) simultaneously forms or is rotationally coupled to the coupling member (30) of the locking device, (Figures 1-6).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, and 13, Fellhauer et al. teaches: Claim 1 - a locking device (embodiment of Figure 7) for a gripping or clamping apparatus (10) having two basic jaws (16) that can be moved closer to and away from one another, with a coupling member (30) which is movably coupled or can be movably coupled to the basic jaws (16) and is arranged so as to be rotatable about an axis of rotation (34), wherein the coupling member (30) has a brake portion (78) on its lateral surface, and with at least one brake element (74) which can be displaced along a locking direction running perpendicular to the axis of rotation (34) from a release position into a locking position in order to fix the coupling member (30), characterized in that that the brake element (74) engages tangentially on the brake portion (78) during displacement into the locking position, (Figures 1-7); Claim 2 - characterized in that the brake portion (78) is designed as a pinion (78) and that the brake element (74) has a toothed rack portion (76) which interacts with the pinion (78) in the locking position and engages tangentially on the pinion (78), (Figures 1-7); Claim 13 - a gripping or clamping apparatus (10) comprising a locking device (Figure 7) according to claim 1, (Figures 1-7).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019081229 (Fellhauer et al.) in view of DE 3521821 (Kuska).
Regarding Claim 10, Fellhauer et al. teaches: Claim 10 - characterized in that a first brake piston (14) and a second brake piston (14) are arranged on a piston rod (24), (Figures 1-7).
Fellhauer et al. does not teach: at least one spring element interacting with the brake piston are provided, wherein the displacement of the brake element from the release position into the locking position takes place due to the spring force of the spring element, and wherein the at least one brake piston delimits a pressure chamber in such a way that, when the pressure chamber is pressurized, the brake element is forced from the locking position into the release position against the spring force of the spring element (Claim 10). However, Kuska teaches: Claim 10 – first and second brake pistons (24), and at least one spring element (23) interacting with each of the brake pistons (24) are provided, wherein the displacement of a brake element (22) from a release position into a locking position takes place due to the spring force of the spring element (23), and wherein the at least one brake piston (24) delimits a pressure chamber (26) in such a way that, when the pressure chamber (26) is pressurized, the brake element (22) is forced from the locking position into the release position against the spring force of the spring element (23), (Figure 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Fellhauer et al. to have at least one spring element interacting with the brake piston are provided, wherein the displacement of the brake element from the release position into the locking position takes place due to the spring force of the spring element, and wherein the at least one brake piston delimits a pressure chamber in such a way that, when the pressure chamber is pressurized, the brake element is forced from the locking position into the release position against the spring force of the spring element (Claim 10) as taught by Kuska for the purposes of providing a spring element which would have the jaws being moved to the locking position when no pressure is present.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-8, 11 and 12 could possibly 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 271467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA E RODDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights