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 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.
Claims 1 and 11: Claim 1 recites “a first means for moving” and claim 11 further defines the means for moving as a drive screw. This limitation is not interpreted to invoke 112(f) since there is sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function recited in the claims. This feature is limited to a drive screw as recited in claim 11.
Claims 14 and 15: Claim 14 recites “a means for selectively fixing” and claim 15 further defines the means for fixing as pins. This limitation is not interpreted to invoke 112(f) since there is sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function recited in the claims. This feature is limited to the pins recited in claim 15.
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.
Claims 1 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marsilius (US 2,176,608).
Claim 1: Marsilius discloses a vise that includes a base (10 of Figure 1); a first jaw (A of Figure 1) connected to said base; a saddle (D of Figure 3); a second jaw (B of Figure 1) movably mounted to said saddle; and a first means for moving (21 of Figure 1) said second jaw relative to said saddle; wherein said saddle is movable relative to said first jaw and movement of saddle relative to said first jaw causes said first and second jaws to be moved towards and away from one another (bolts 20 along with paw 16 are used secure D and B along the rack 18 in order to move B closer to or further away from A), and wherein movement of said second jaw relative to said saddle causes said first and second jaws to be moved towards or away from one another (movement of B relative to D is cause by the rotation of drive screw 21 which when rotated moves B closer to or further away from A).
Claim 10: Marsilius further discloses that the base comprises a least one flange (11 of Figure 1) configured for mounting said vise to a generally planar support surface.
Claim 11: Marsilius further discloses that the means for moving comprises a drive screw (21 of Figure 1), said drive screw located in said saddle (D of Figure 1), said second jaw connected to said drive screw via a spindle nut (spindle nut is provided by the threaded portion of the saddle through which 21 extends), whereby rotation of the drive screw causes said second jaw to change positions relative to said drive screw (Page 2, Lines 3-17).
Claim 12: Marsilius further discloses that a handle is connected to a first end of said drive screw for turning said drive screw (the hex at the first end of the drive screw is considered a handle because it would provide a surface for a user to grasp and turn the drive screw).
Claims 1-2 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seely (US 1,583,611).
Claim 1: Seely discloses a vise that includes a base (4 of Figure 1); a first jaw (7 of Figure 1) connected to said base; a saddle (3 of Figure 1); a second jaw (8 of Figure 1) movably mounted to said saddle; and a first means for moving (14 of Figure 1) said second jaw relative to said saddle; wherein said saddle is movable relative to said first jaw and movement of saddle relative to said first jaw causes said first and second jaws to be moved towards and away from one another (Page 1, Lines 58-84, the location of 3 is adjusted relative to section 2 in order to located jaw 7 relative to jaw 8), and wherein movement of said second jaw relative to said saddle causes said first and second jaws to be moved towards or away from one another (Page 2, Lines 4-24, after adjusting the distance between 7 and 8 drive screw 14 is used to clamp the workpiece by moving 8 relative to saddle 3, this clamping action move 8 closer to 7, a release of this clamping would move 8 further from 7).
Claim 2: Seely further discloses that the saddle comprises an elongated tubular mount (as depicted in Figure 1 base 4 slides inside saddle 3, therefore saddle 3 is considered an elongated tubular, further as depicted in Figure 1 clamp 8 is mounted on the saddle 3, therefore saddle 3 is considered a mount).
Claim 14: Seely further discloses a means for selectively fixing said saddle relative to said first jaw (5 of Figure 5 and 9 of Figure 6).
Claim 15: Seely further discloses, that said means comprises a least one pin (5 of Figure 5 and 9 of Figure 6) which is mounted to said first jaw and can be moved in and out of at least one aperture in said saddle (as depicted in Figure 1 pin 9 moves is configured to move in and out of aperture to secure 7 to 2 which is secured to 4 and 3 by pins 9 and 6).
Claims 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kirk (US 7,114,715 B1)
Claim 1: Kirk discloses a vise that includes a base (3 of Figure 2); a first jaw (7 of Figure 2) connected to said base; a saddle (11 of Figure 1); a second jaw (4 of Figure 1) movably mounted to said saddle; and a first means for moving (1 of Figure 1) said second jaw relative to said saddle; wherein said saddle is movable relative to said first jaw and movement of saddle relative to said first jaw causes said first and second jaws to be moved towards and away from one another (Col. 2, Lines 29-44, the distance between the first and second jaw is changed based on the location of 11 within 9), and wherein movement of said second jaw relative to said saddle causes said first and second jaws to be moved towards or away from one another (Col. 2, Lines 49-60, after the initial distance is set using the movement of 11, a clamping force is applied using 1, this application of the clamping force moves 4 closer to 7).
Claim 6: Kirk further discloses that the first jaw comprises a slide (9 of Figure 1) and a jaw body (7 of Figure 1) connected to said slide, wherein said saddle extends through a passage of said slide (as depicted in Figure 1 saddle 11 slides in 9)
Claim 7: Kirk further discloses that the first jaw body is fabricated from sheet metal (Col. 2, Lines 29-43) and defines one or more generally planar working surfaces (clamping surface) supported by one or more support beams (portion of 7 to which the working surface is joined).
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.
Claims 3 and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seely (US 1,583,611) in view of Kirk (US 7,114,715 B1).
Claim 3: Seely further discloses that the saddle has a top, a pair of opposing sides, and a bottom which defines an elongated slot (as depicted in Figure 3). While Seely discloses a portion of the limitations recited in claim 3, Seely fails to discloses that the saddle is fabricated from sheet metal.
However, Kirk teaches that it is known in the art to form a similar vise from tubular bar member made of sheet metal (the bar members 9 and 11 are metal tubulars, Col. 2, Lines 29-43, these metal tubulars would be formed from sheet metal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute sheet metal for the generic material of the saddle of Seely. This modification would have been obvious to and well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to make because it is prima facie obvious to substitute one known prior art element for another in order to achieve predictable results (MPEP 2143(B)). In the instant case the predictable result would be the saddle of Seely being formed of sheet metal.
Claim 13: Seely further discloses that the second jaw comprises a base (portion of 8 through which 3 extends) and a jaw body (portion of 8 which provides the clamping surface) mounted to said base, wherein said base defines a passage through which said saddle extends (as addressed above 3 extends through the base) and defines one or more planar working surfaces (surface of 8 that contacts workpiece 5 of Figure 1) supported by one or more support beams (the side portions of 8 that form the passage are considered support beams on which the work surface is supported). Seely fails to disclose that the jaw body is fabricated from sheet metal
However, Kirk teaches that it is known in the art to form a similar vise from tubular bar member made of sheet metal (the bar members 9 and 11 are metal tubulars, Col. 2, Lines 29-43, these metal tubulars would be formed from sheet metal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute sheet metal for the generic material of the jaw of Seely. This modification would have been obvious to and well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to make because it is prima facie obvious to substitute one known prior art element for another in order to achieve predictable results (MPEP 2143(B)). In the instant case the predictable result would be the jaw of Seely being formed of sheet metal.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seely (US 1,583,611) in view of Kirk (US 7,114,715 B1) and Dade (US 1,020,192).
Claims 4-5: Seely fails to discloses that the top and sides of said saddle define an inset channel and a ⅀ beam configuration.
However, Dade teaches that it is known in the art to form portions of a vise that include an inset channel and a ⅀ beam configuration (see shape of 1 of Figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the shape of the saddle of Seely such that it included an inset channel and was of a ⅀ beam configuration. This modification would strengthen the saddle and allow for alignment of features of the vise of Seely within the inset channel.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsilius (US 2,176,608) in view of Klimach (US 5,172,895)
Claim 8: Marsilius further discloses that base comprises one or more upwardly extending walls (outer walls depicted in Figure 6) and a top (19 of Figure 6), an interior space (11 of Figure 6) under said top, but fails to disclose at least one drawer which is configured to be moved relative to one of said walls in and out of said interior space.
However, Ferguson teaches a vise that includes a base (10 of Figure 1) that includes at lease one drawer (174 of Figure 1) which is configured to be moved relative to one of said walls in and out of said interior space (Col. 9, Lines 35-51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Klimach with that of Marsilius in order to provide the base of Marsilius with a drawer. This modification would provide a location for tooling to be stored in the vise of Marsilius. Further, this modification would have been obvious to and well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to make because it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements by known methods in order to achieve predictable results (MPEP 2143(A)). In the instant case the predictable result would be that the vise of Marsilius would include a drawer as taught by Klimach.
Claim 9: Marsilius further discloses a cutout that extends into at least one of said walls from a bottom of the wall upwardly along said wall (as depicted in Figure 1).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsilius (US 2,176,608) in view of Siegel (US 7,290,761 B2)
Claims 16-19: Marsilius fails to disclose that the at least one of said first and second jaws comprises a generally vertical working surface having at least one pin which is biased to extend outwardly therefrom.
However, Siegel teaches a vise that includes a generally vertical working surface (24 and 26 of Figure 1) having at least one pin (25, 28 of Figure 1) which is biased to extend outwardly therefrom, a plurality of workpiece engagement members which are independently movable relative to the jaw body (as depicted in Figure 1 pins 25,28 include workpiece engagement members 25 that move independently relative to jaw bodies), comprise mounts which are movable relative to a base which is connected to said jaw body (the center of the pins are considered mounts), said mounts having a first end and a second end (25,28 of Figure 1), at least one biasing member (29 of Figure 1) associated with said first end, and wherein said at least one biasing member comprises an elastomeric member or a spring (as depicted in Figure 1 the biasing member are springs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the spring biased pins of Siegel with the jaws of Marsilius in order to provide the features of claims 16-19. This modification would have been advantageous because it would allow the jaws of Marsilius to more effectively clamp workpieces of various shapes. Further, this modification would have been obvious to and well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to make because it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements by known methods in order to achieve predictable results (MPEP 2143(A)). In the instant case the predictable result would be that the jaws of Marsilius would include the spring biased pins of Siegel.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seely (US 1,583,611) in view of Walker (US 2,815,053).
Claim 20: Seely fails to discloses that the first jaw is rotatably mounted to the base.
However, Walker teaches a similar vise that includes first and second jaws (41 and 65 of Figure 4) that are rotatable relative to a base (21 of Figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Walker with that of Seely such that the first jaw of Seely was rotatable. This modification would have been advantageous as it would allow the first jaw of Seely to more effectively clamp workpieces having an angled surface. Further, this modification would have been obvious to and well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to make because it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements by known methods in order to achieve predictable results (MPEP 2143(A)). In the instant case the predictable result would be that the first jaw of Seely would be capable of rotation relative to the base.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON L VAUGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5704. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Sunil 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.
/JASON L VAUGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726