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 Objections
Claims 2-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble, “Vise” should be corrected as --The [[Vise]]vise--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the displacement direction of the jaws” in line 12 and “the displacement direction of the same thrust element” in line 14 should be corrected as --[[the]]a displacement direction of the jaws-- and --[[the]]a displacement direction of the same thrust element-- respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “double inverted wedge” in line 7 should be corrected as --[[double inverted wedge]]double inverted wedge--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a workpiece” in line 2 should be corrected as --[[a]]the workpiece--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1: Claim 1 recites “and actuator exerts its own thrust simultaneously on two jaws by slidingly engaging the guides of two jaws with its own inclined walls”. However, this renders the scope of the claim indefinite. Claim 1 recites “two or more jaws” in lines 1-2 and “actuators” in line 2. It is not clear whether “actuator” in line 15 refers to “actuators” in line 2 or if they are separate and distinct from each other. Also, it is not clear whether “two jaws” in line 15 and line 16 refer to “two or more jaws” in lines 1-2 or if they are all separate and distinct from each other. For examination purposes, upon review of the originally filed specification (see abstract), “and actuator exerts its own thrust simultaneously on two jaws by slidingly engaging the guides of two jaws with its own inclined walls” is interpreted as --and each actuator exerts its own thrust simultaneously on two of the jaws by slidingly engaging the guides of the two jaws with its own inclined walls--.
Claim 2: Claim 2 recites “a jaw” in line 2 and “at most is orthogonal in the version of vise with two jaws” in lines 3-4. However the scope of the claim is indefinite. First, it is not clear whether “a jaw” and “two jaws” are referring to “two or more jaws” of claim 1 (which upon claim 2 depends) or if they are separate. Second, the phrase, “in the version of vise with two jaws” is not clear. For examination purposes, “a jaw” and “at most is orthogonal in the version of vise with two jaws” are interpreted as --[[a]]the jaw-- and --at most is orthogonal [[in the version of vise]] with only two of the jaws-- respectively.
Claim 8: Claim 8 recites “two jaws” in line 2 and “two actuators” in line 3. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. It is not clear whether “two jaws” refer to “two or more jaws” in claim 1 (which upon claim 8 depends) or if they are separate and distinct from each other. Similarly, it is not clear whether “two actuators” refer to “actuators” in claim 1 or if they are separate and distinct from each other. For examination purposes, “two jaws” and “two actuators” are interpreted as --the two jaws-- and --the two actuators-- respectively.
Claim 10: Claim 10 recites “three jaws” in line 2, “three actuators” in line 3, “wherein each actuator is interposed between two jaws” in line 4. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. It is not clear whether “three jaws” refer to “two or more jaws” in claim 1 (which upon claim 10 depends) or if they are separate and distinct from each other. Similarly, it is not clear whether “three actuators” refer to “actuators” in claim 1 or if they are separate and distinct from each other. For examination purposes, “three jaws” and “three actuators” are interpreted as --three of the jaws-- and --three of the actuators-- respectively. For clarity, “wherein each actuator is interposed between two jaws” is interpreted as --wherein each actuator is interposed between two of the adjacent jaws--.
Claim 14: The phrase "i.e. to decrease the applied pressure” in line 5 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the limitations following “i.e.” is not considered/interpreted as part of the claimed invention. Therefore, “and to loosen the grip of the jaws on the workpiece, i.e. to decrease the applied pressure, as much as needed to return the elastic element to the undeformed configuration, while holding the workpiece” in lines 5-7 has been interpreted as --and to loosen the grip of the jaws on the workpiece, [[i.e. to decrease the applied pressure,]] as much as needed to return the elastic element to the undeformed configuration, while holding the workpiece--.
Claims 3-7, 9, 11-13 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 9, 11-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten to overcome the claim objection(s) set forth in this Office action.
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and the claim objection(s) set forth in this Office action.
Claim 2, 8, 10, and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten to overcome the claim objection(s) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The subject matter of the independent claim(s) could either not be found or was not suggested in the prior art of record. The subject matter of independent claim 1 not found was a use of actuators, each actuator comprising a thrust element susceptible to displacements parallel to the lying plate of the jaws, each jaw comprises two guides inclined and symmetrical with respect to a displacement direction of the jaws, said thrust element comprises two walls inclined and symmetrical with respect to a displacement direction of the same thrust element, each actuator exerts its own thrust simultaneously on two of the jaws by slidingly engaging the guides of the two jaws with its own inclined walls; in combination with the limitations set forth in claim 1 of the instant invention.
None of the prior arts of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, teaches or renders obvious the allowable subject matter of the instant invention.
The closest prior art, Kirsten et al (US 10,843,311 B2) teaches a similar self-centering vise (fig1) comprising a body 4 (col.4line42), two or more jaws 10,12 (col.4 lines44) constrained to the body 4 and an actuator 22 (fig4, col.4 lines58-61) of the jaws 10,12, wherein the jaws 10,12 are movable with respect to the body 4 (col.4 lines45-47), on a lying plane (a horizontal plane where the jaws move along) of the jaws 10,12, close to and away from a workpiece gripping axis 6 (col.4 lines46-47, figs2-3), to clamp a workpiece on said workpiece gripping axis 6 and to release the workpiece, in response to the stresses imparted by said actuator 22, and; characterized in that the actuator 22 comprises a thrust element 29 (col.4 line63) susceptible to a displacement (fig3) parallel to the lying plane of the jaws 10,12 in response to the stresses imparted by a fluid (col.5 lines27-31, “hydraulic or pneumatic”) fed to the vise 4, and each jaw 10,12 comprises a guide (fig3, col.5 lines4-9) inclined, and said thrust element 29 comprises a wall 33 (col.4 line66, fig4) inclined, and the actuator 22 exerts its own thrust simultaneously on two of the jaws 10,12 by slidingly engaging the guide of the two jaws 10,12 with its own inclined wall 33 (figs2-3, col.5 lines4-9).
Although the prior art of record teaches a similar self-centering vise, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the self-centering vise of Kirsten et al to use more than one actuator (“actuators”, line 2 of the instant claim 1), each jaw comprising two guides symmetrical with respect to a displacement direction of the jaws, said thrust element comprises two walls symmetrical with respect to a displacement direction of the same thrust element, each actuator exerts its own thrust simultaneously on tow of the jaws by slidingly engaging the guides of the two jaws with its own inclined walls; in combination with the limitations set forth in claim 1 of the instant invention. Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the independent claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Kesil et al (US 10,099,384 B1), Fischer (3,899,162), Borcea et al (4,593,948), Borcea et al (5,125,708), and Kuroda (US 6,799,767 B2) teach similar vise, however, none of the prior arts of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, teaches or renders obvious the allowable subject matter of the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm ET.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723