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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Species I and Invention I is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the Requirement for Restriction, the election has been treated as an election without traverse. MPEP § 818.01(a). Claims 1-57 are pending. Claims 9-12, 15-16, 22, 26-29, 31, and 34-57 are withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses the phrase (that could be implied) “Provided is”. Correction is required. MPEP § 608.01(b). No new matter should be entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“comprising” (claim 1, line 1) should be changed to --comprising:--;
“and in that the” (claim 4, line 3) should be changed to --and the--;
“a maximum acute angle” (claim 7, line 14) should be changed to --a maximum acute angle of the clamping rail--;
“the horizontal axis” (claim 7, line 14) should be changed to --a horizontal axis of the holding body--;
“the wall” (claim 24, line 12) should be changed to --a wall--;
“the wall” (claim 24, line 14) should be changed to --a wall--;
“the cutout” (claim 24, line 20) should be changed to --a cutout--;
“the cutout” (claim 24, line 23) should be changed to --a cutout--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“advance element” (claim 19, line 2; which includes element 164, and equivalents thereof (Spec. Fig. 11, p. 40, lines 8-29));
“an operative element” (claim 20, lines 2-3; which includes element 162, and equivalents thereof (Spec. Fig. 11, p. 40, lines 31-32).
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 U.S.C. § 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 7-8, 19-21 and 23-24 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 7 recites the limitation “a maximum acute angle of the clamping rail relative to a horizontal axis of the holding body is such that the clamping rail or the pressure piece will not in any displacement position of the clamping rail project beyond an underside of the holding body which is provided for contact of the holding body against the plate”. This limitation is indefinite because it is based on other variables, such as the length of the clamping rail (e.g., a very long clamping rail would result in a very small maximum acute angle), which is not claimed in any manner to limit the scope. Thus, the claim itself and the specification do not provide a standard for ascertaining the scope of this limitation. MPEP § 2173.05(b)(II). For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a maximum acute angle relative to the horizontal axis is less than or equal to 15°, and in particular less than or equal to 10°, and in particular less than or equal to 7°, and in particular less than or equal to 6°, and in particular less than or equal to 5°.” 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. MPEP § 2173.05(c)(I). The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or is a required feature of the claim. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “oriented transversely and in particular perpendicularly” (lines 5, 8, 10). 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. MPEP § 2173.05(c)(I). The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or is a required feature of the claim. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
The limitations below are indefinite because they are unclear and fail to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what they mean because the phrase “in particular” indicates an example or a preference that makes the scope of the limitation uncertain. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 20-21 and 23-24 are rejected on the basis they incorporate the limitation of claim 19 below.
“the at least one advance element is configured in the form of a plate, and in particular a sheet metal plate” (claim 19);
“wherein the operative element acts directly upon the at least one advance element, and in particular contacts same” (claim 21);
“a rotary bearing which is in particular a sliding bearing” (claim 24);
“a region of the guide element or the at least one advance element lies in the cutout and is in particular in contact against a wall of the cutout” (claim 24).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Underhill
Claims 1-8, 13-14, 17-18, 25, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3043587 A (“Underhill”).
Regarding claim 1, Underhill discloses a clamping apparatus for a plate (Figs. 1-8, clamping apparatus 10), comprising[:]
a holding body at which a bolt is arranged for entering into an opening of the plate (Figs. 1-8; 2:6-15, holding body including elements 16 and 20, where the bottom portion of element 16 is a bolt that is capable of the recited function; Examiner notes that this limitation includes a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)).
a clamping rail which is linearly displaceable relative to the holding body along a displacement axis (Figs. 1-8, clamping rail 64 is linearly displaceable relative to the holding body 16/20 along a displacement axis (e.g., central axis of rail 64)),
and a pressure piece which is arranged or formed at the clamping rail (Figs. 1-8, pressure piece 66 or 68 on rail 64),
wherein the clamping rail is guided for linear displacement on a guide element which is movably supported on the holding body (Figs. 1-8, guide element 40 (with jaws 42 and 44) guides rail 64 for linear displacement and guide element is movably supported on holding body 16/20),
and wherein the guide element is supported for height movement such that a height distance of the pressure piece to at least one of (i) the bolt and (ii) the holding body is dependent on a position of the guide element relative to the holding body, wherein the height distance is transverse to the displacement axis of the clamping rail (Figs. 1-8, guide element 40 is capable of height movement (via vertical adjustment along element 16 using set screw 22 or tilting via pivot 34) such that the height distance of pressure piece 66 or 68 to the bolt (bottom portion of element 16) or holding body 20 depends on the position of the guide element 40 relative to the holding body 20).
Regarding claim 2, Underhill discloses the clamping apparatus of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the guide element is supported for height movement on the holding body such that the height distance of the pressure piece to at least one of (i) the bolt and (ii) the holding body is smaller in a clamped state in which the clamping apparatus exerts a clamping force upon a workpiece than in an unclamped state in which the clamping apparatus does not exert a clamping force (Figs. 1-8, when clamping a workpiece, pressure piece 66 can move towards pressure piece 68, or pressure piece 68 can move towards pressure piece 66 (see Fig. 1), such that the height distance of pressure piece 66 to the bolt (bottom portion of element 16) is smaller than when in an unclamped state, and the height distance of pressure piece 68 to the holding body 20 is smaller than when in an unclamped state).
Regarding claim 3, Underhill discloses the clamping apparatus of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the guide element is heightwise movable relative to the holding body such that when in a clamped state in which the clamping apparatus exerts a clamping force upon a workpiece, a hold-down force is exerted on the workpiece (Figs. 1-8, guide element 40 is capable of height movement relative to holding body 20 and a hold-down force is exerted on a clamped workpiece (i.e., the workpiece is not capable of moving relative to the clamping apparatus)).
Regarding claim 4, Underhill discloses the clamping apparatus of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the bolt extends along a height axis, wherein the height distance is parallel to the height axis, and [] the guide element is supported for height movement on the holding body such that, via the guide element, the pressure piece has a mobility component parallel to the height axis (Figs. 1-8, bolt (bottom of element 16) extends along a height (vertical) axis, guide element 40 is supported for height movement on the holding body 20 (via vertical adjustment along element 16 using set screw 22 or tilting via pivot 34) such that pressure piece 66 or 68 has can move with a movement component along the height axis).
Regarding claim 5, Underhill discloses the clamping apparatus of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the guide element is pivotably or displaceably supported relative the holding body (Figs. 1-8, guide element 40 is pivotably supported relative to the holding body 20 (tilting via pivot 34)).
Regarding claim 6, Underhill discloses the clamping apparatus of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein via the heightwise movable guide element, the clamping rail, relative to at least one of (i) the bolt and (ii) the holding body, is - pivotable, or - heightwise displaceable as a whole; or - heightwise displaceable in one or more portions thereof (Figs. 1-8, clamping rail 64 is pivotable and heightwise displaceable as a whole relative to the bolt (bottom part of element 16) and the holding body 20 via the guide element 40).
Regarding claim 7, Underhill discloses the clamping apparatus of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein via the heightwise movable guide element, an angular position of the clamping rail relative to at least one of (i) the bolt and (ii) the holding body is variable, with at least one of the following: - in a clamped state in which the clamping apparatus exerts a clamping force upon a workpiece, the clamping rail lies with its displacement axis at an acute angle to a horizontal axis of the holding body; - a maximum acute angle of the clamping rail relative to a horizontal axis of the holding body is such that the clamping rail or the pressure piece will not in any displacement position of the clamping rail project beyond an underside of the holding body which is provided for contact of the holding body against the plate; - a maximum acute angle [of the clamping rail] relative to [a] horizontal axis is less than or equal to 15°, and in particular less than or equal to 10°, and in particular less than or equal to 7°, and in particular less than or equal to 6°, and in particular less than or equal to 5° (Figs. 1-8, when in a clamped position (upon a workpiece), the clamping rail 64 is capable of being at an acute angle to the holding body 20 (see acute angle of Fig. 1)).
Regarding claim 8, Underhill discloses the clamping apparatus of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the guide element is pivotably supported on the holding body via a pivot bearing, with at least one of the following:- a pivot axis of the pivot bearing is oriented transversely and in particular perpendicularly to the displacement axis of the clamping rail; - a pivot axis of the pivot bearing is oriented transversely and in particular perpendicularly to a direction of the height distance; - a pivot axis of the pivot bearing is oriented transversely and in particular perpendicularly to a height axis of the bolt; - the guide element is configured in the form of a rocker; - the clamping rail is positioned between the pivot bearing and the bolt, with respect to the height distance; - the pivot bearing is arranged such that a projection of the pivot bearing in a direction of the height distance lies on the bolt or at a distance transverse to a height axis of the bolt of less than 2 cm from the bolt (Figs. 1-8, guide element 40 is pivotably supported on holding body 20 via transverse pivot 34 (transverse to the displacement axis of clamping rail 68, to a direction of height distance, to a height axis of bolt 16), and guide element 40 is in the form of a rocker, and the clamping rail 68 (at least a portion) can be positioned to be between the pivot 34 and bolt 16 in the height direction).
Regarding claim 13, Underhill discloses the clamping apparatus of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the holding body has an underside with a contact surface for contact against the plate, wherein the bolt extends transversely away from the underside (Figs. 1-8, underside of holding body 20 has a surface that is capable of contacting against the plate (e.g., plate 12 when holding body is moved all the way down to the plate), where bolt 16 extends transversely away from the underside).
Regarding claim 14, Underhill discloses the clamping apparatus of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein a clamping lever is provided which is pivotable relative to the holding body, with at least one of the following:- a pivot axis of the clamping lever is oriented transversely to the displacement axis of the clamping rail; - a pivot axis of the clamping lever is oriented parallel or at an acute angle of less than 15° relative to a height axis of the bolt; - a pivot axis of the clamping lever is oriented transversely to a contact surface of the holding body against the plate (Figs. 1-8, clamping lever 32 is pivotable relative to holding body 20 with a pivot 34 transverse to the displacement axis of clamping rail 64).
Regarding claim 17, Underhill discloses the clamping apparatus of claim 14 as applied above and further discloses wherein the clamping lever has at least a first position in which a displacement movement of the clamping rail along the displacement axis is released, and has a second position which is a blocking position in which the displacement of the clamping rail in a backward direction is blocked (Figs. 1-8, clamping lever 32 has a first position to release the clamping rail 68 (e.g., rotated counterclockwise to a release position) and a second position to block or hold the clamping rail 68 (e.g., rotated clockwise to a tightened position)).
Regarding claim 18, Underhill discloses the clamping apparatus of claim 17 as applied above and further discloses wherein in the second position, a movement of the clamping lever out of the second position is blocked (Figs. 1-8, when fully tightened in the second position, lever 32 is at least partially blocked by way of frictional force that needs to be overcome in other to rotate lever 32 to towards the first position).
Regarding claim 25, Underhill discloses the clamping apparatus of claim 14 as applied above and further discloses wherein at least one of the following applies: - the clamping lever is positioned above the holding body, relative to a height direction of the height distance; - when the clamping apparatus is fixed against the plate, a pivoting plane of the clamping lever is parallel to the plate or lies at an acute angle of less than 100 to the plate (Figs. 1-8, clamping lever 32 is positioned above the holding body 20 in the height direction).
Regarding claim 30, Underhill discloses the clamping apparatus of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the bolt is fixably removably arranged at the holding body (Figs. 1-8, bolt 16 is fixably removably arranged at the holding body 16 via set screw 22; Examiner interprets “fixably removably arranged” to mean capable of being fixed but also removable from being fixed).
Regarding claim 32, Underhill discloses the clamping apparatus of claim 30 as applied above and further discloses wherein the bolt is fixably removably held in place to the holding body via a threaded connection (Figs. 1-8, bolt 16 is fixably removably arranged at the holding body 16 via set screw 22; Examiner interprets “fixably removably held” to mean capable of being fixed but also removable from being fixed).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Underhill
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 3043587 A (“Underhill”).
Underhill pertains to a clamping apparatus (Figs. 1-8). This reference is in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 33, Underhill discloses the clamping apparatus of claim 30 as applied above. Underhill does not explicitly disclose wherein a set of bolts is provided, wherein different bolts have at least one of (i) different diameters and (ii) different lengths. However, Underhill makes obvious this claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have a set of bolts (e.g., one extra bolt along with original bolt element 16) with different lengths because having multiple bolts with different lengths would allow a user to have a different range of height adjustment of the holding body 20 on the bolt 16 (e.g., a taller bolt would allow for greater range of height adjustment, a shorter bolt would allow for device compactness when extra height is unnecessary). Applicant states no novel or unexpected result due to having multiple bolts. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671 (CCPA 1960) (“It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). Also, the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to any particular bolt size or length. Gardner v. TEC Sys., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device based on a difference in dimensions because it would perform no differently than the prior art device); MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objection and rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as set forth in this Office action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant’s reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of record is US 3043587 A (“Underhill”).
Regarding claim 19, Underhill discloses the clamping apparatus of claim 14 as applied above. Underhill does not disclose wherein at least one advance element is provided which is associated with the clamping lever and via which the clamping lever acts upon the clamping rail, with at least one of the following:- the clamping rail is passed through an opening of the at least one advance element; - the at least one advance element is configured in the form of a plate, and in particular a sheet metal plate; - in a first position of the clamping lever, the at least advance element is positioned such that the clamping rail is freely displaceable along the displacement axis; - starting from the first position of the clamping lever, a pivoting of the clamping lever effects canting of the at least one advance element relative to the clamping rail and effects advancement of the at least one advance element, and hence of the clamping rail along the displacement axis.
Although an “advance element” (e.g., a plate; see § 112(f) interpretation above) is known in the art to lock a guide rail (passing through the advance element) in place relative to a jaw or other component (US 1818501 A (“Odin”) Fig. 4, plates or disks 49 with lever 55; US 5348276 A (“Blacker”) Figs. 2-4, plates 9 with lever 6)), one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application would not have modified Underhill and clamping lever 32 to meet the limitations of claim 19 without hindsight based on Applicant’s disclosure. For example, lever 32 of Underhill performs the dual function of tightening guide rail 64 to guide element 40 and holding body 20 while also setting the tilt angle of guide rail 64 relative to the holding body 20. Altering this clamping lever 32 and guide element 40 to incorporate the “advance element” and the other associated, necessary structure does not appear to be an obvious modification in light of Underhill’s disclosed configuration because the lever 32 would lose the tilting function.
In view of the prior art of record and its deficiencies, Applicant’s invention is novel, non-obvious, and allowable as claimed. Claims 20-21 and 23-24 are allowable for depending from claim 19 (subject to addressing the claim objections and § 112(b) rejections where appropriate).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-57 are pending. Claims 9-12, 15-16, 22, 26-29, 31, and 34-57 have been withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 1-8, 13-14, 17-21, 23-25, 30, and 32-33 are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on Form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure because the references pertain to workholders with height adjustment mechanisms, guide rails, or other features related to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/ Date: June 4, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights