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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6-9 and 28-30 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hobday (US 5,454,551) in view of Klimach (2002/0070490).
Regarding Claim 8, Hobday a clamp (Fig. 4) comprising:
a bar (Ref. 12, Fig. 1) having a top surface (Fig. 4 annotated below) and a bottom surface (Fig. 4 annotated below);
a fixed jaw (Ref. 116, Fig. 4) fixed relative to the bar (Fig. 4); and
a movable assembly (Ref. 114, Fig. 4) configured to selectively move along the bar (fig. 4-5), the movable assembly comprising:
a movable jaw (Ref. 160, Fig. 4) positioned to move with the movable assembly relative to the fixed jaw (fig. 1-3);
an actuator (Ref. 66, Fig. 4) configured to incrementally move the movable assembly along the bar towards the fixed jaw and to apply a clamp force to a clamp load (Fig. 1-2, [Col. 6, Lines 1-17] describes urging the movable assembly towards the fixed jaw to engage a workpiece, the actuator is capable of moving the movably assembly to apply a clamp force and a clamp load);
a release lever (Ref. 166, Fig. 4) configured to disengage the movable assembly from the bar to permit free sliding of the movable assembly along the bar towards or away from the fixed jaw, and to release the clamp force when actuated ([Col. 5, Line 1-17] describes the lever releasing the bar allowing free sliding when actuated)
Hobday fails to explicitly teach a bearing surface is formed on a bearing insert. Klimach teaches a clamp comprising a bar, fixed jaw, and movable assembly and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Klimach teaches a clamp (Ref. 10, Fig. 1), comprising a bar with a fixed jaw (Ref. 48, Fig. 1), and a movable assembly (Ref. 12, Fig. 1) with a bearing surface (Ref. 20, Fig. 4 top and bottom surfaces) supported in the movable assembly (Ref. 12, Fig. 1), and positioned to prevent the movable assembly from binding to the bar (Ref. 14, fig. 1) when the clamp load is released through actuation of the release lever ([0043]);
wherein the bearing surface is formed on a bearing insert (Ref. 34, Fig. 4) that is received in the movable assembly (Fig. 1&4), wherein the bearing surface is configured to engage the top surface or the bottom surface of the bar (Fig. 1&4 shows the bearing surface engaging the top surface of the bar), and wherein the bearing surface of the bearing insert includes alignment features (Ref. 20, side walls, Fig. 4, [0061]) to support and hold the bearing insert in the movable assembly ([0061]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the movable assembly, as taught by Hobday, with a bearing insert with a bearing, as taught by Klimach, by rearrangement of parts and to reduce friction and make it easier to slide and displace along the bar ([0043]).
PNG
media_image1.png
538
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Hobday as modified teaches the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and Hobday further teaches a mount (Ref. 162, Fig. 4) for the movable jaw (Fig. 4). Klimach further teaches wherein the bearing surface (20, top and bottom walls) is positioned to contact the bottom surface of the bar (Fig. 1&4), opposite a mount for the movable jaw (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the movable assembly, as taught by Hobday, with a bearing insert with a bearing surface opposite a mount for the movable jaw, as taught by Klimach, by rearrangement of parts and to reduce friction and make it easier to slide and displace along the bar ([0043]).
Regarding Claim 7, Hobday as modified teaches the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and Klimach further teaches wherein the bearing surface (20, top and bottom walls) is positioned to contact the top surface of the bar (Fig. 1&4), adjacent to an engagement point between the release lever and the bar (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the movable assembly, as taught by Hobday, with a bearing insert adjacent to an engagement point between the release lever and the bar, as taught by Klimach, by rearrangement of parts and to reduce friction and make it easier to slide and displace along the bar ([0043]).
Regarding Claim 9, Hobday as modified teaches the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and Hobday further teaches wherein the movable assembly comprises a screw clamp assembly (Ref. 172, 172, and 176, Fig. 4) including a screw clamp handle (Ref. 176, Fig. 4), and wherein the movable jaw is a screw clamp jaw (Ref. 178, Fig. 4) configured to separately move relative to the fixed jaw through rotation of the screw clamp handle ([Col. 6, Lines 1-17]).
Regarding Claim 28, Hobday as modified teaches the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and Klimach further teaches wherein the alignment features of the bearing insert (20) each comprise a recessed portion of the bearing insert ([0061] describes a recess) that receives a portion of the movable assembly (Ref. 24, Fig. 1, [0062-0063] describes the blocking element as part of the housing of the movable assembly and is received at the ends of the bearing insert (34)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the movable assembly, as taught by Hobday, with alignment features of the bearing surface comprise a recessed portion of the bearing insert that receives a portion of the movable assembly, as taught by Klimach, by rearrangement of parts and to reduce friction and make it easier to slide and displace along the bar ([0043]) and to not interfere with the locking mechanism.
Regarding Claim 29, Hobday as modified teaches the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and Klimach further teaches wherein the bearing insert (34) is positioned between the bar and a mount (Ref. 98a, Fig. 4 shows bearing insert between the bar and mount) for the movable jaw (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the movable assembly, as taught by Hobday, with the bearing insert positioned between the bar and a mount, as taught by Klimach, by rearrangement of parts and to reduce friction and make it easier to slide and displace along the bar ([0043]).
Regarding Claim 30, Hobday as modified teaches the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and Klimach further teaches wherein the bearing surface (18) contacts the top surface of the bar (Fig .1&4) and is positioned laterally between an engagement point of the release lever and the bar (Ref. 24, Fig. 1) and a portion of the movable assembly closest to the fixed jaw (Ref. 42, Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the movable assembly, as taught by Hobday, with a bearing surface between the bar engagement point and portion of movable assembly, as taught by Klimach, by rearrangement of parts and to reduce friction and make it easier to slide and displace along the bar ([0043]) and to not interfere with the locking mechanism.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hobday as modified as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Bunting (NPL, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 2, Hobday as modified teaches the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and Bunting further teaches the bearing surface is formed of a polymer ([Plastic Bushings & Bunting Bushing Solutions]). Given Bunting, it is old and well known in the art that bearings are made of polymers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the bearing surface, as taught by Hobday as modified, to be formed of a polymer, based on intended use, size and scale of the device, and basic engineering principles, to best suit the intended function, since there is a lack of criticality for the material used and to add further functionality of self-lubricating and corrosion and chemical resistant bearings ([Plastic Bearings]).
Regarding Claim 3, Hobday as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and Bunting further teaches the bearing surface is formed of one or more of PTFE, HDPE, or UHMW polyethylene ([Bunting Bushing Solutions] describe bearings/bushings made of PTFE). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the bearing surface, as taught by Hobday as modified, to be formed of a PTFE, as taught by Bunting, based on intended use, size and scale of the device, and basic engineering principles, to best suit the intended function, since there is a lack of criticality for the material used and to add further functionality of self-lubricating and corrosion and chemical resistant bearings ([Plastic Bearings]).
Regarding Claim 4, Hobday as modified teaches the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and Bunting further teaches the bearing surface is formed of an oil impregnated material ([Bronze Bushings – Sintered Bronze]). Given Bunting, it is old and well known in the art that bearings are made of oil impregnated material such as sintered bronze. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the bearing surface, as taught by Hobday as modified, to be formed of an oil impregnated material, as taught by Bunting, based on intended use, size and scale of the device, and basic engineering principles, to best suit the intended function, since there is a lack of criticality for the material used and to provide further functionality of durability and corrosion resistance ([Bronze Bushings]).
Regarding Claim 5, Hobday as modified teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and Bunting further teaches it is old and well known in the art that bearings are made of oil impregnated material such as sintered bronze ([Bronze Bushings – Sintered Bronze]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the bearing surface, as taught by Hobday as modified, to be formed of a sintered bronze, as taught by Bunting, based on intended use, size and scale of the device, and basic engineering principles, to best suit the intended function, since there is a lack of criticality for the material used and to provide further benefit of being used at both high and low speeds as well as high and low temperatures ([Sintered Bronze]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 21-27 and 31 are allowed.
Regarding Claim 10, Hobday the closest prior art of record, discloses a clamp comprising, a bar, a fixed jaw, a movable assembly, a moveable jaw, an actuator, and a release lever, but Hobday, alone or in combination with the additional elements of the claim does not teach, suggest, or make obvious wherein the release lever is movable between a first position where relative movement between the movable assembly and the bar is prevented, a second position where the release lever disengages the bar to permit the movable assembly to freely slide along the bar, and a third position where relative movement between the movable assembly and the bar is prevented, the third position being opposite the first position with the second position therebetween, , as particularly required by the claim, and in combination with the additional elements of the claims.
Claims 21-27 and 31 are allowed due to being dependent upon an allowed claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 July, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 8 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the limitation of wherein the bearing surface of the bearing insert includes alignment features to support and hold the bearing insert in the moveable assembly have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant’s specifications indicate that there are alignment features of the bearing that are being received into or receiving corresponding alignment features of the movable assembly ([0022]) and while claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. The current claim limitations only require the bearing surface of the bearing insert to include alignment features to support and hold the bearing insert. The term “support and hold” are interpreted broadly as assisting in restricting movement in any direction. If applicant intended for the alignment features to connect to alignment features of the movable assembly to restrict vertical movement of the bearings such a limitation is not required by the claims. Examiner has applied Hobday in view of Klimach to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. While Klimach teaches wherein the bearing surface of the bearing insert includes alignment features (Ref. 20, side walls, Fig. 4, [0061]) to support and hold the bearing insert in the movable assembly ([0061]). Figure 4 shows that the sidewalls do support and hold the bearing insert in the moveable assembly by supporting and holding the bearing assembly from moving in a lateral direction as it axially limits movement of the bearing assembly. Further, [0061] of Klimach, describes the alignment features to help restrict rotational movement of rotation. Examiner further notes the alignment features are on a different perpendicular plane to the bearing surface and while the edges of the alignment features are on the bearing surface, the limitation of “the bearing surface of the bearing insert includes alignment features” do not fully encompass the full structural relationship of the alignment features.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights