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]).
Claims 10 and 25-27 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 10, Hobday teaches Regarding Claim 10, Hobday teaches 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. 1) 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;
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 a clamp force when actuated ([Col. 5, Line 1-17] describes the lever releasing the bar allowing free sliding when actuated); and
wherein the release lever is movable between a first position where relative movement between the movable assembly and the bar is prevented (Fig. 4, [Col. 5, Line 1-17]), a second position where the release lever disengages the bar to permit the movable assembly to freely slide along the bar ([Col. 5, Line 1-17] describes the lever releasing the bar allowing free sliding when actuated)), and a third position where relative movement between the movable assembly and the bar is prevented (examiner notes, the limitation of restricting relative movement is interpreted as restricting relative movement in any direction), the third position being opposite the first position with the second position therebetween ([Col. 5, Line 1-17] describes the lever able to move in a counter clockwise direction, and it would be capable of a third position engaging the bar where relative movement between the movable assembly and bar is prevented in a vertical direction, the third position being opposite the first position with enough force applied).
Hobday fails to explicitly teach a bearing surface. 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]). 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 25, Hobday as modified teaches the limitations of claim 10, 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 26, Hobday as modified teaches the limitations of claim 10, 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 27, Hobday as modified teaches the limitations of claim 10, 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]).
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hobday as modified as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Bunting (NPL, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 21, Hobday as modified teaches the limitations of claim 10, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the bearing surface is formed of a polymer. Bunting teaches about characteristics of bearings and is considered analogous art because it is reasonable pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of having bearings of a specific characteristics to effectively move objects. Bunting teaches bearings can be made of multiple materials including Sintered Bronze or PTFE and 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 22, Hobday as modified teaches the limitations of claim 21, 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 23, Hobday as modified teaches the limitations of claim 10, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the bearing surface is formed of an oil impregnated material. Bunting teaches about characteristics of bearings and is considered analogous art because it is reasonable pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of having bearings of a specific characteristics to effectively move objects. Bunting teaches bearings can be made of multiple materials including Sintered Bronze or PTFE and 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 24, Hobday as modified teaches the limitations of claim 23, 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 November, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 8 have been fully considered. However, the applicant has amended claim 8 thereby changing the scope of the claim and necessitating a new grounds of rejection. The new ground of rejection teaches Klimach. 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]) and wherein the bearing surface is formed on a bearing insert (Ref. 34, Fig. 4) that is received in the movable assembly (Fig. 1&4) 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]).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 10 have been fully considered. However, the applicant has amended claim 10 thereby changing the scope of the claim and necessitating reinterpretation of the prior art. Applicant’s arguments that Hobday fails to teach a third position that prevents relative movement between the movable assembly and bar has been fully considered and is not persuasive. Examiner has applied Hobday to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Hobday teaches a third position where relative movement between the movable assembly and the bar is prevented (examiner notes, the limitation of restricting relative movement is interpreted as restricting relative movement in any direction), the third position being opposite the first position with the second position therebetween ([Col. 5, Line 1-17] describes the lever able to move in a counter clockwise direction, and it would be capable of a third position engaging the bar where relative movement between the movable assembly and bar is prevented in a vertical direction, the third position being opposite the first position with enough force applied). Examiner notes the limitation’s broadest interpretation allows for relative movement in any direction to be prevented. Given the teaching of the different movements of the lever to be able to move in a counter clockwise direction when force is applied this movement is opposite direction to the first position. The lever’s engagement of the bar in would prevent relative movement in a vertical direction.
Conclusion
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