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 9 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “, each of the at least one pins extending through a slot formed in a corresponding one of the at least one claim elements ”.
The examiner believes it should read “, each of the at least one pins extending through a slot formed in a corresponding one of the at least one clamp elements”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “main axis”, “drive axis”, “clamp axis” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
“a clamp assembly configured to demountably secure a flange to the base“ in claim 1.
“a drive element selectively positionable relative to the base and engaging the clamp member to selectively rotate the clamp member about the clamp axis.” In claim 4
“biasing element configured to urge the first end of the clamp member away from the base.” In claim 5
“a drive element engaging each of the at least one clamp elements to selectively rotate the clamp element about the corresponding clamp axis between a clamped position and an unclamped position.” In claim 7
Three Prong Test:
Prong I: a clamp assembly (Generic place holder)
Prong II: to demountably secure (Function)
Prong III: No structure
Regarding a clamp assembly, the specification recites “In any embodiment, the clamp assembly comprises at least one clamping element, wherein each of the at least one clamping elements includes a clamp member rotatably coupled to the base about a clamp axis such that rotation of the clamp member in a first direction about the clamp axis moving a first end of the clamp member toward the base; and a drive element selectively positionable relative to the base and engaging the clamp member to selectively rotate the clamp member about the clamp axis.” In ¶0011 and is further explained by Figures 8-11 clamp assembly 250 and clamp ring 252. The examiner will use the citation, and figures mention above to define the clamp assembly.
Three Prong Test:
Prong I: a drive element in (claim 4) (Generic place holder)
Prong II: selectively rotate the clamp member (Function)
Prong III: No structure
Regarding the drive element, the specification recites ” In any embodiment, the drive element is a screw in threaded engagement with the base.” In ¶0010 and “In any embodiment, the drive element is a clamp ring mounted to the base for selective rotation about the main axis, the clamp ring driving each of the at least one clamp elements about the corresponding clamp axis.” In ¶0012. The examiner will use the citation above to define the drive member.
Three Prong Test:
Prong I: a drive element (claim 7) (Generic place holder)
Prong II: to selectively rotate the clamp element (Function)
Prong III: No structure
Regarding the drive element, the specification recites ” In any embodiment, the drive element is a screw in threaded engagement with the base.” In ¶0010 and “In any embodiment, the drive element is a clamp ring mounted to the base for selective rotation about the main axis, the clamp ring driving each of the at least one clamp elements about the corresponding clamp axis.” In ¶0012. The examiner will use the citation above to define the drive member.
Three Prong Test:
Prong I: biasing element (Generic place holder)
Prong II: configured to urge the first end of the clamp member away from the base (Function)
Prong III: No structure
Regarding the biasing element, the specification recites ” As best shown in FIGURE5, each clamp assembly150 includes a thumbscrew152 in threaded engagement with the base120 and configured for rotation about an axis304. Rotation of the thumbscrew152 translates the thumbscrew along axis304 relative to the base120. A clevis154 is mounted to a lower portion of the plate and defines an axis306. An elongate clamping member156 is rotatably mounted to the clevis154 about axis306. The clamp assembly150 further includes a biasing element162, such as a torsion spring, that urges the clamping member156 to rotate about axis306 so that a first end158 of the clamping member maintains contact with the thumbscrew152 (clockwise as shown in FIGURE 5).”, in ¶0038. The examiner will use the citation above to define the biasing element.
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 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.
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 CFR 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.
Claims 1-3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070297556 A1 – Spencer in view of JP 60024271 A – Koga.
Regarding claim 1, Spenser is directed towards an orbital welder. Spenser does teach a base (32) having a main axis (Figures 10-17 although does expressly not show an axis line, the axis line is implied since the bad is a semi-circle and the material that is welded by the base are tubes.); a mount coupled to the base (Figure 11 shows base 33 coupled to arc length gear 33 and mounted to pivot bracket 76) and rotatable about the main axis ([0062] The torch assembly 38 is secured to both the arc length gear 33 and the travel gear 34.), a welding torch coupled to the mount ([0066] As shown in FIG. 19, the torch assembly 38 includes a pivot bracket 76, a water-cooled torch block assembly 77 mounted to the pivot bracket 76), the welding torch having an electrode ([0066] The torch block assembly 77 includes a gas tungsten arc welding torch 83), and a motor configured to drive rotation of the mount about the main axis ([0054] The welding system 10 includes a motor housing 11, a weld head assembly 12 remote from the motor housing 11, and an insertion tube 13 interconnecting the weld head assembly and motor housing.).
Koga is directed towards welding a pipe flange. Koga does teach a clamp assembly configured to demountably secure a flange to the base ([0001] The pipe flange welding apparatus relating to this invention, which achieves this objective, comprises a chucking device for gripping the flange of the pipe,); electrode that extends radially outward from the main axis (See figure 2 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
258
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The combination of the flange clamp to a pipe and the electrode that extends radially outward from the main axis of Koga with the orbital welder of Spenser allows for the pipe and flange to be aligned before the welding inside the pipe is performed.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spenser to include a clamp assembly configured to demountably secure a flange to the base and electrode that extends radially outward from the main axis because the flange clamp to a pipe and the electrode that extends radially outward from the main axis of Koga with the orbital welder of Spenser allows for the pipe and flange to be aligned before the welding inside the pipe is performed.
Regarding claim 2, Spencer and Koga does teach the limitations of claim 1. Spencer does teach a drive gear coupled to the motor for selective rotation about a drive axis ([0061] Worm gears 42 and 43 are provided on the drive shafts 36 and 37, respectively, to rotate individual gear train assemblies 44 and 46. Gear train assembly 44 drives arc length gear 33 and gear train assembly 46 drives travel gear 34.); and a main gear fixedly positioned relative to the mount and engaging the drive gear such that rotation of the drive gear about the drive axis in a first direction rotates the welding torch about the main axis in a second direction. ([0061] respectively, to rotate individual gear train assemblies 44 and 46. Gear train assembly 44 drives arc length gear 33 and gear train assembly 46 drives travel gear 34.) Furthermore, the arch length gear 33 and travel gear 34 are attached to the frame 32.
Regarding claim 3, Spencer and Koga does teach the limitations of claim 1. Spencer does not expressly teach the clamp assembly is configured to center the flange along the main axis.
Koga does teach the clamp assembly is configured to center the flange along the main axis (Figure 2 and [0001] 7 is the claw of the flange chucking device… 9 is the positioning stopper when inserting the flange).
The combination of the claw for holding flanges and a positioning stopper of Koga with the orbital welder of Spenser allows the flange to be aligned to a specific position before the welding process begins.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer to include the clamp assembly is configured to center the flange along the main axis because the claw for holding flanges and a positioning stopper of Koga with the orbital welder of Spenser allows the flange to be aligned to a specific position before the welding process begins.
Regarding claim 13, Spencer and Koga does teach the limitations of claim 1. Spencer does teach the welding torch is a TIG welding torch ([0013] provides the electromechanical means required to orbit and position a tungsten inert gas (TIG) welding torch assembly around a cylindrical shape in order to join two sections of pipe or tube together).
Regarding claim 14, Spencer and Koga does teach the limitations of claim 1. Spencer does teach the rotation of the mount drives the electrode along a circular path ([0019] The arc length gear and the travel gear cooperate to adjust the distance between the torch assembly and the pipe and to adjust the location of the torch assembly around the circumference of the pipe when the weld head assembly is attached to the pipe.).
Regarding claim 15, Spencer and Koga does teach the limitations of claim 14. Spencer does teach the circular path is offset from the base ([0019] The arc length gear and the travel gear cooperate to adjust the distance between the torch assembly and the pipe and to adjust the location of the torch assembly around the circumference of the pipe when the weld head assembly is attached to the pipe.), Furthermore, figure 14 shows the two drive gears 33 and 34 offset from the frame 32.
Claims 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070297556 A1 – Spencer and JP 60024271 A – Koga as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20210308810 A1 – Nishimura.
Regarding claim 4, Spencer and Koga does teach the limitations of claim 1. Spencer does not expressly teach wherein the clamp assembly comprises at least one clamping element each of the at least one clamping elements including: a clamp member rotatably coupled to the base about a clamp axis rotation of the clamp member in a first direction about the clamp axis moving a first end of the clamp member toward the base; and a drive element selectively positionable relative to the base and engaging the clamp member to selectively rotate the clamp member about the clamp axis.
Nishimura is directed towards a clamping mechanism. Nishimura does teach wherein the clamp assembly comprises at least one clamping element (11c) each of the at least one clamping elements including: a clamp member (16) rotatably coupled to the base about a clamp axis rotation of the clamp member in a first direction about the clamp axis moving a first end of the clamp member toward the base (Figure 2 shows that when pin 16 is threaded into the base the clamps 11 go towards the base.);
and a drive element selectively positionable relative to the base and engaging the clamp member to selectively rotate the clamp member about the clamp axis ([0058] Then each of the motor shafts is attached to the corresponding support hole 11s, and the motor shaft is rotated in both the forward and reverse directions, thereby causing the corresponding clamp claw 11 to perform the opening or closing movement.).
The combination of the clamp member and drive element of Nishimura with the orbital welder of Spencer allows for the claws 11 to be opened and closed to hold the object to be welded and furthermore be driven by a motor.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer to include the clamp assembly comprises at least one clamping element, each of the at least one clamping elements including: a clamp member rotatably coupled to the base about a clamp axis, rotation of the clamp member in a first direction about the clamp axis moving a first end of the clamp member toward the base; and a drive element selectively positionable relative to the base and engaging the clamp member to selectively rotate the clamp member about the clamp axis because the clamp member and drive element of Nishimura with the orbital welder of Spencer allows for the claws 11 to be opened and closed to hold the object to be welded and furthermore be driven by a motor.
Regarding claim 5, Spencer, Koga, and Nishimura does teach the limitations of claim 4. Spencer does not expressly teach wherein each of the at least one clamping elements further includes a biasing element configured to urge the first end of the clamp member away from the base.
Nishimura does teach wherein each of the at least one clamping elements further includes a biasing element configured to urge the first end of the clamp member away from the base. (See figure 2 below) The annotated figure 2 shows that contact points 11c are kept away from the base by the shelf (not numbered) of clamp 11.
PNG
media_image2.png
337
744
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The combination of the biasing element of Nishimura and the orbital welder of Spencer allows for the contacting points of the claws 11 to maintain a set distance from the base of the clamping unit.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer to include each of the at least one clamping elements further includes a biasing element configured to urge the first end of the clamp member away from the base because the biasing element of Nishimura and the orbital welder of Spencer allows for the contacting points of the claws 11 to maintain a set distance from the base of the clamping unit.
Regarding claim 6, Spencer, Koga, and Nishimura does teach the limitations of claim 4. Spencer does not expressly teach the drive element is a screw in threaded engagement with the base.
Nishimura does teach the drive element is a screw in threaded engagement with the base ([0042] Moreover, the fitting portion 16g is preferably inserted into the pin hole 15t such that the flange portion 16f can lightly touch the clamp claw 11.).
The combination of the fitting portion (thread of a bolt) of Nishimura with the orbital welder of Spencer allows for the claw to be secured to the base and tighten as needed for clamping.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer to include the drive element is a screw in threaded engagement with the base because the fitting portion (thread of a bolt) of Nishimura with the orbital welder of Spencer allows for the claw to be secured to the base and tighten as needed for clamping.
Regarding claim 7, Spencer and Koga does teach the limitations of claim 1. Spencer does not expressly teach at least one elongate clamp element mounted to the base for rotation about a corresponding clamp axis, the clamp axis being parallel to the main axis, and a drive element engaging each of the at least one clamp elements to selectively rotate the clamp element about the corresponding clamp axis between a clamped position and an unclamped position
Nishimura does teach at least one elongate clamp (11) element mounted to the base for rotation about a corresponding clamp axis (Figure 2 shows a rotatable plate 13 that rotates about the base 15), the clamp axis being parallel to the main axis (Figure 1); and a drive element engaging each of the at least one clamp elements to selectively rotate the clamp element about the corresponding clamp axis between a clamped position and an unclamped position ([0058] Then each of the motor shafts is attached to the corresponding support hole 11s, and the motor shaft is rotated in both the forward and reverse directions, thereby causing the corresponding clamp claw 11 to perform the opening or closing movement.).
The combination of the elongate clamp and a drive element of Nishimura with the orbital welder of Spencer allows for the elongated clamps to be driven down to secure the object to be welded.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer to include one elongate clamp element mounted to the base for rotation about a corresponding clamp axis, the clamp axis being parallel to the main axis, and a drive element engaging each of the at least one clamp elements to selectively rotate the clamp element about the corresponding clamp axis between a clamped position and an unclamped position because the elongate clamp and a drive element of Nishimura with the orbital welder of Spencer allows for the elongated clamps to be driven down to secure the object to be welded.
Regarding claim 8, Spencer, Koga, and Nishimura does teach the limitations of claim 7. Spencer does not expressly teach wherein the drive element is a clamp ring mounted to the base for selective rotation about the main axis, the clamp ring driving each of the at least one clamp elements about the corresponding clamp axis.
Nishimura does teach wherein the drive element is a clamp ring (13) mounted to the base for selective rotation about the main axis, the clamp ring driving each of the at least one clamp elements (11) about the corresponding clamp axis. ([0058] At this time, the motor serves as a mover apparatus and also serves as a support shaft, which allows omission of the swivel ring 13 and actuator 14 which serve as the mover apparatus as well as omission of the pin 16 which serves as the support shaft, thereby eliminating the need for the elongated hole 11h to be formed in the clamp claw 11)
The combination of the clamp claw and the swivel ring of Nishimura with the orbital welder of Spencer allows for the swivel ring to be rotated therefore moving the clamp claws to be aligned with the object to be welded.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer to include the drive element is a clamp ring mounted to the base for selective rotation about the main axis, the clamp ring driving each of the at least one clamp elements about the corresponding clamp axis because the clamp claw and the swivel ring of Nishimura with the orbital welder of Spencer allows for the swivel ring to be rotated therefore moving the clamp claws to be aligned with the object to be welded.
Regarding claim 9, Spencer, Koga, and Nishimura does teach the limitations of claim 8. Spencer does not expressly teach wherein the clamp ring includes at least one pin mounted thereto, each of the at least one pins extending through a slot formed in a corresponding one of the at least one clamp elements, movement of each of the at least one pin around the main axis driving rotation of the corresponding clamp element about the corresponding clamp axis.
Nishimura does teach wherein the clamp ring includes at least one pin (13p) mounted thereto, each of the at least one pins extending through a slot formed in a corresponding one of the at least one clamp elements, ([0010] a swivel ring 13 including rod-shaped members 13p inserted through an elongated hole 11h formed in the clamp claw 11), movement of each of the at least one pin around the main axis driving rotation of the corresponding clamp element about the corresponding clamp axis (Figure 2 and [0010] , wherein each rod-shaped member 13p is configured to move relative to the elongated hole 11h in a longitudinal direction of the elongated hole 11h to cause the corresponding clamp claw 11 to perform the opening or closing movement.).
The combination of the pins of Nishimura rod-shaped members of Nishimura with the orbital welder of Spencer allows for the rotation of the clamp claws 11 relative to the swivel ring 13 to open and close the clamping members.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer to include the clamp ring includes at least one pin mounted thereto, each of the at least one pins extending through a slot formed in a corresponding one of the at least one clamp elements, movement of each of the at least one pin around the main axis driving rotation of the corresponding clamp element about the corresponding clamp axis because the pins of Nishimura rod-shaped members of Nishimura with the orbital welder of Spencer allows for the rotation of the clamp claws 11 relative to the swivel ring 13 to open and close the clamping members.
Regarding claim 10, Spencer, Koga, and Nishimura does teach the limitations of claim 9. Spencer does not expressly teach further comprising a plurality of mounting tabs coupled to the base, each mounting tab limiting rotation of at least one of the clamp elements.
Nishimura does teach further comprising a plurality of mounting tabs (14 and 19) coupled to the base, each mounting tab limiting rotation of at least one of the clamp elements ([0012] the mover apparatus 12 is configured such that the actuator 14 and the swivel ring 13 are detachably connected to each other and such that, in a case in which the swivel ring 13 is attached to the actuator 14, the actuator 14 is configured to cause the swivel ring 13 to rotate by a predetermined stroke and [0014] as shown in FIG. 1, for example, the clamping mechanism 10 according to any one of the first aspect to fourth aspect, further includes a stopper 19 configured to directly and indirectly restrict the clamp claws 11 from approaching each other more than a third predetermined distance.).
The combination of the stopper and actuator of Nishimura with the orbital welder of Spencer allows for the rotation of the clamping device to be limited, in order not to over rotate.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer to include a plurality of mounting tabs coupled to the base, each mounting tab limiting rotation of at least one of the clamp elements because the stopper and actuator of Nishimura with the orbital welder of Spencer allows for the rotation of the clamping device to be limited, in order not to over rotate.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070297556 A1 – Spencer, JP 60024271 A – Koga, and US 20210308810 A1 – Nishimura as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US 20220163310 A1 - Pow.
Regarding claim 11, Spencer, Koga, and Nishimura does teach the limitations of claim 9. Spencer does not expressly teach at least one handle extends radially from the clamp ring.
Pow is directed towards a truck repair kit. Pow does teach wherein at least one handle (134D) extends radially from the clamp ring ([0073] Unlike spiral clamping ring 114, where a handle 114D may be integral or fixed to spiral clamping ring 114 (this is not mandatory), spiral clamping ring 134 may comprise a detachable handle 134D.).
The combination of the handle of Pow with the clamping assembly of Nishimura and the orbital welder of Spencer allow for another means to spin the clamping devices manually.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer and Nishimura to include at least one handle extends radially from the clamp ring because the handle of Pow with the clamping assembly of Nishimura and the orbital welder of Spencer allow for another means to spin the clamping devices manually.
Regarding claim 12, Spencer, Koga, and Nishimura does teach the limitations of claim 11. Spencer does not expressly teach a guide fixedly positioned relative to the base, the guide limiting rotation of the clamp ring about the main axis.
Nishimura does teach further comprising a guide (13re) fixedly positioned relative to the base, the guide limiting rotation of the clamp ring about the main axis. (Figure 2 shows the opening 13re allow limited movement of the ring body 13r.).
The combination of the openings of Nishimura with the orbital welder of Spencer allows for the rotation of the swivel ring to be limited to ensure the ring does not over rotate.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spencer to include a guide fixedly positioned relative to the base, the guide limiting rotation of the clamp ring about the main axis because the openings of Nishimura with the orbital welder of Spencer allows for the rotation of the swivel ring to be limited to ensure the ring does not over rotate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10500665 B2 – Cash does teach an orbital welder with clamps and gears for the welding torch to travel on.
US 5844190 A – Benway does teach an orbital welder for connecting pipes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE whose telephone number is (571)272-5853. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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, Steven W Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights