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 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 1, line 5, the word “referemce” should be replaced with the word --reference--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mosing et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0262341), hereinafter “Mosing”.
With respect to Claim 1, Mosing, Figures 1-12, teaches a clamp for holding a flexible slender structure comprising:
- a housing 10 with a through hole 11, where the through hole 11 comprises a tapered section (See Figure 9A), and
- a gripping element 12 arranged in the tapered section of the through hole 11, movable in the axial direction of the through hole, where the gripping element has an outer surface facing the walls of the through hole 11 and an inner surface configured to grip the flexible slender structure, and where a movement of the gripping element in the axial direction in the through hole causes a radial movement of at least a part of the gripping element.
With respect to Claim 2, Mosing further teaches actuating means initiating movement of the gripping element in the axial direction in the through hole. See Paragraph [0035].
With respect to Claim 3, Mosing further teaches where the actuating means comprises at least one hydraulic cylinder arranged in a first end portion of the housing comprising an opening for the through hole and being connected to the gripping element. See Paragraph [0035], line 12.
With respect to Claim 4, Mosing further teaches where the friction between the outer surface of the gripping element and the housing is lower than the friction between the inner surface of the gripping element and the flexible slender structure when the flexible slender structure is held by the clamp.
With respect to Claim 5, Mosing further teaches where the inner surface of the gripping element comprises a number of protrusions configured to penetrate or deform the surface of the flexible slender structure. (See Figure 9A).
With respect to Claim 6, Mosing further teaches where the gripping element is removable and replaceable.
With respect to Claim 7, Mosing further teaches where a blocking element 920 is arranged in the through hole for limiting the axial movement of the gripping element.
With respect to Claim 8, Mosing further teaches where the blocking element 920 is movable and can be fixed in different positions along the central axis of the through hole, thereby providing an adjustable grip force.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6-7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Powell (U.S. Patent No. 3,675,278).
With respect to Claim 1, Powell, Figures 1-2, teaches a clamp for holding a flexible slender structure comprising:
- a housing 10 with a through hole 18, where the through hole 18 comprises a tapered section (See Column 2, line 22), and
- a gripping element 37,38 arranged in the tapered section of the through hole 11, movable in the axial direction of the through hole, where the gripping element has an outer surface facing the walls of the through hole 18 and an inner surface configured to grip the flexible slender structure, and where a movement of the gripping element in the axial direction in the through hole causes a radial movement of at least a part of the gripping element.
With respect to Claim 2, Powell further teaches actuating means initiating movement of the gripping element in the axial direction in the through hole. See Paragraph [0035].
With respect to Claim 4, Powell further teaches where the friction between the outer surface of the gripping element and the housing is lower than the friction between the inner surface of the gripping element and the flexible slender structure when the flexible slender structure is held by the clamp.
With respect to Claim 6, Powell further teaches where the gripping element is removable and replaceable.
With respect to Claim 7, Powell further teaches where a blocking element 17 is arranged in the through hole for limiting the axial movement of the gripping element.
With respect to Claim 9, Powell further teaches where the housing comprises at least two housing parts 25 which can be locked together by locking means 33.
With respect to Claim 10, Powell further teaches where the two housing parts 25 are connected by a hinged connection. See Column 2, lines 8-10.
With respect to Claim 11, Powell further teaches where the locking means are bolts 32.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell as applied to Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-7, and 9-11 above, and further in view of Mosing et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0262341), hereinafter “Mosing”.
With respect to Claim 3, Powell is advanced above.
Powell teaches all the elements of the clamp except for
where the actuating means comprises at least one hydraulic cylinder arranged in a first end portion of the housing comprising an opening for the through hole and being connected to the gripping element.
However, Mosing teaches where the actuating means comprises at least one hydraulic cylinder arranged in a first end portion of the housing comprising an opening for the through hole and being connected to the gripping element. See Paragraph [0035], line 12.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide at least one hydraulic cylinder for the gripping element, as taught by Mosing, for the purpose of increasing the gripping force that would not be able to be achieved by manual force.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell as applied to Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-7, and 9-11 above, and further in view of Brown (U.S. Patent No. 3,748,702).
With respect to Claim 5, Powell is advanced above.
Powell teaches all the elements of the clamp except for
where the inner surface of the gripping element comprises a number of protrusions configured to penetrate or deform the surface of the flexible slender structure.
However, Brown, Figures 1-2, teaches where the inner surface of the gripping element comprises a number of protrusions 14 configured to penetrate or deform the surface of the flexible slender structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use protrusions, as taught by Brown, because such would increase the grip on the material and would avoid slippage of the material while being gripped.
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 WILLIAM ARAUZ RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM MDT.
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, Victoria P. Augustine can be reached at 313-446-4858. 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.
/WILLIAM A. RIVERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights