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
MPEP 608.01(m) provides that “While there is no set statutory form for claims, the present Office practice is to insist that each claim must be the object of a sentence starting with "I (or we) claim," "The invention claimed is" (or the equivalent). If, at the time of allowance, the quoted terminology is not present, it is inserted by the Office of Data Management. Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations.”. The examiner notes that claims 1 and 5 are not in a single sentence form, with periods in the middle of the claim.
For claim 1, consider --A clamping device for two workpieces, including a first body (1)wherein the first body (1) is connected via a first driving mechanism (2) to a second body (3) capable of moving up and down[[.]] ,wherein [[T]] the second body (3) is equipped with a first clamping block (4) and connected through a second driving mechanism (5) to a second clamping block (6) capable of moving laterally to approach or move away from the first clamping block (4)[.],wherein [[T]]the first clamping block (4) has a downwardly open and outwardly open first slot (41) for clamping down a first workpiece (101) or allowing the first workpiece (101) to be inserted from below when in position)[[.]],wherein [[T]]the second clamping block (6) has a downwardly open and outwardly open second slot (61) for clamping down a second workpiece (102) or allowing the second workpiece (102) to be inserted from below when in position,wherein a space formed between the first slot (41) and the second slot (61) holds the first workpiece (101) and the second workpiece (102) together[[.]] ,wherein [[T]]the first clamping block (4) includes a first blocking part (42) to prevent the first workpiece (101) from moving away from the second workpiece (102) when clamped together, and the second clamping block (6) includes a second blocking part (62) to prevent the second workpiece (102) from moving away from the first workpiece (101).--
For claim 2, consider --wherein the second slot (61) is open from side to side, and the second blocking part (62) is composed of two pieces positioned on [[the]] inner side walls of the second slot (61) at [[the]] a front and a back.--
For claim 3, consider --wherein the second workpiece (102) is a spring, and [[the]] an end of the first workpiece (101) facing the second workpiece (102) is designed with an opening to allow [[the]] an end of the spring to extend into it--
For claim 4, consider --wherein the first driving mechanism (2) and the second driving mechanism (5) use a cylinder mechanism--.
For claim 5, consider --wherein the device further includes a third body (7), ,wherein the first body is capable of lateral movement,wherein the two workpiece claiming device is configured to allow the third body (7) to drive the second body (3) to move laterally--.
Claim 1 and claims 2-5 provide for different preambles, consider using -- The clamping device for two workpieces according to claim 1-- in claims 2-5.
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.
Claim 1-5 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 is of an unclear scope because the preamble of claim 1 recites “A clamping device for two workpieces” and the claim later recites “The first clamping block (4) has a downwardly open and outwardly open first slot (41) for clamping down a first workpiece (101) or allowing the first workpiece (101) to be inserted from below when in position”, “The second clamping block (6) has a downwardly open and outwardly open second slot (61) for clamping down a second workpiece (102) or allowing the second workpiece (102) to be inserted from below when in position” and “The first clamping block (4) includes a first blocking part (42) to prevent the first workpiece (101) from moving away from the second workpiece (102) when clamped together, and the second clamping block (6) includes a second blocking part (62) to prevent the second workpiece (102) from moving away from the first workpiece (101)”. This is indicative of how the claiming device is intended to work with a first and second workpiece (and thus, the workpiece not being a required part of the claim, see MPEP 2115). There also appears to be a recitation in the claim of “The space formed between the first slot (41) and the second slot (61) holds the first workpiece (101) and the second workpiece (102) together.” It is ambiguous whether this recitation positively requires the first workpiece and the second workpiece (which are shown in the instant figures), and thus makes the first and second workpieces part of the claim, or whether this is intended to be functional (i.e. the intended meaning is that --The space formed between the first slot (41) and the second slot (61) is configured to hold] or [for holding] the first workpiece (101) and the second workpiece (102) together--). The examiner, in view of the guidance provided in MPEP 2115, and the other functional recitations in the claim, including the apparent intended use in the preamble, will interpret the limitation of “The space formed between the first slot (41) and the second slot (61) holds the first workpiece (101) and the second workpiece (102) together” to be an intended functional use, and this the first and second workpiece is not an explicit part of the claim. Claims 2-5 do not clarify the claim scope, and are also indefinite. This indefiniteness is not clarified in the specification.
Furthermore, as for claim 3, the examiner will interpret the limitation to further describe the intended use of the clamp, i.e. the clamp allows for clamping down/allowing insertion of a spring in one clamping block and for clamping down/allowing insertion of a second workpiece with an opening to allow the spring to be inserted in the other clamping block.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
first driving mechanism in claim 1, corresponding to first driving mechanism 2 (i.e. a cylinder - described as cylinder mechanism);
second driving mechanism in claim 1, corresponding to second driving mechanism 5 (i.e. a cylinder - described as cylinder mechanism);
third driving mechanism in claim 5, corresponding to third driving mechanism 8 (while a cylinder or other structure is not explicitly described, the structure is similar/the same as what is shown in the figures as second driving mechanism 5, thus the third driving mechanism is provided with description to also be a cylinder or equivalents thereof when the disclosure is considered in its entirety by a person of ordinary skill in the art);
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 4 also recites the “first driving mechanism” and “second driving mechanism” provided in claim 1, and describes such as to be a “cylinder mechanism”. Despite “cylinder mechanism” containing a nonce term “mechanism”, there is sufficient structure recited (cylinder) such that a 35 USC 112(f) interpretation would not be appropriate. As a result, “first driving mechanism” and “second driving mechanism” in claim 4 is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as sufficient structure is disclosed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wei (CN 203611053 U).
PNG
media_image1.png
690
963
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 1 (Wei)
With respect to claim 1, Wei discloses A clamping device for two workpieces (clamp described in abstract, two workpieces are intended use, see MPEP 2111.02 and Wei can be used with two workpieces), includes a first body (first body is a sliding base 60 as shown in fig. 1; [0014] that directly travels on guide rail 20). This first body is connected via a first driving mechanism to a second body capable of moving up and down (first driving mechanism 30, fig. 1 incudes main cylinder 31, two counter air cylinders 32 and 4 linear optical axis 33, [0014], and is connected to a second body that includes clamping mechanism 40 with a clamping rail 41, the clamping cylinder 42, left and right clamping block 43, shown in fig. 1, and described in [0014], the second body with clamping mechanism 40 moves up and down via first driving mechanism 30 to lift as in [0014], 30 is 112(f) equivalent to first driving mechanism as an arrangement with a cylinder to move up/down).
The second body is equipped with a first clamping block (first clamping block is the left side clamping block 43, fig. 1) and connected through a second driving mechanism (clamping cylinder 42 can do clamping and opening movement on the clamping rail 41, fig. 1; [0014], 112(f) equivalent as an arrangement to move blocks together) to a second clamping block (second clamping block is the right side claiming block 43, fig. 1) capable of moving laterally to approach or move away from the first clamping block (clamping cylinder 42 can do clamping and opening movement on the clamping rail 41, as explained above).
The first clamping block has a downwardly open and outwardly open first slot for clamping down a first workpiece or allowing the first workpiece to be inserted from below when in position (see ann. fig. 1, above, the slot is outwardly open from to allow insertion of a workpiece from the side, and well as from the bottom; the workpiece is not required, the claim only requires that it functionally clamp or allow a workpiece to be inserted, see MPEP 2115, and in this case the workpiece is not positively recited as an element of the clamp, and the preamble provides “clamping device for two workpieces”).
The second clamping block has a downwardly open and outwardly open second slot for clamping down a second workpiece or allowing the second workpiece to be inserted from below when in position (see ann. fig. 1, above, the slot is outwardly open from to allow insertion of a workpiece from the side, and well as from the bottom; the workpiece is not required, a the claim only requires that it functionally clamp or allow a workpiece to be inserted, see MPEP 2115; [0014] provides that both clamping blocks are symmetrical and as such a second workpiece can be inserted/clamped; in this case the workpiece is not positively recited as an element of the clamp, and the preamble provides “clamping device for two workpieces”).
The space formed between the first slot and the second slot holds the first workpiece and the second workpiece together (the space formed between the first and second slot can allow the workpieces to be held together, for example, if the second driving mechanism presses the two workpieces together, see interpretation in the 112(b) rejection above; see also MPEP 2115).
The first clamping block includes a first blocking part to prevent the first workpiece from moving away from the second workpiece when clamped together (first blocking part, ann. fig. 1, on both sides of the slot, front and rear, [0014] provides symmetrical clamping blocks and one would be on the first clamping block, not fully visible, and could prevent the workpiece from moving out of the slot sideways and away from a second workpiece), and the second clamping block includes a second blocking part to prevent the second workpiece from moving away from the first workpiece (second blocking part, ann. fig. 1, on both sides of the slot, front and rear, [0014] provides symmetrical clamping blocks; and could prevent the workpiece from moving out of the slot sideways and away from the first workpiece).
With respect to claim 3, Wei discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the second workpiece is a spring, and the end of the first workpiece facing the second workpiece is designed with an opening to allow the end of the spring to extend into it (the examiner’s interpretation, provided in the section 112(b) rejection above, is that the workpieces themselves are not part of the clamping device, as such, this claim serves to further define what the clamp can hold in terms of the workpiece, and in this case, clamping device can hold a spring and another workpiece with an opening to allow the end of the spring to extend into it, when placed against each clamping block; see also MPEP 2115).
With respect to claim 4, Wei discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the first driving mechanism and the second driving mechanism are also using a cylinder mechanism (first driving mechanism uses main cylinder 31, two counter air cylinders 32 [0014], fig. 1; and second driving mechanism is clamping cylinder 42 can do clamping and opening movement on the clamping rail 41, as explained above).
With respect to claim 5, Wei discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the device further includes a third body (linear guide 20, fig. 1; [0014]), which is connected via a third driving mechanism (8) to the first body (1) capable of lateral movement (connected to/via motor 50 [third driving mechanism, 112(f) equivalent as a motor for driving, and as in fig. 1 includes a wheel on the linear guide 20] which is connected to first body 60 for driving first body, fig. 1 [0114]). This setup allows the third body (7) to drive the second body (3) to move laterally ([0114], move along guide 20).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN 203611053 U), and further in view of Yu (CN 103056873 A).
With respect to claim 5, Wei discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the second slot is open from side to side (it appears, as indicated in the ann. fig. 1, that Wei discloses that the T shape outline which extends to the second slot, is open on both sides, and thus the second slot is open on the side facing the other clamping block, as well as the side opposite the other clamping block), and the second blocking part is composed of two pieces positioned on the inner side walls of the second slot at the front and back (two blocking pieces as indicated in ann. fig. 1 of Wei, above, front and back [into/out of page]). The examiner submits that under a preponderance of evidence standard (see MPEP 706) it is more likely than not that the claim is unpatentable as anticipated by Wei, as the evidence on the record (Wei) shows that the T shape outline extends through the clamping block with the outline of the rim in Wei in ann. fig. 1,
Wei also discloses that the clamping arrangement is applicable to many types of fields ([0002.0016]), and provides for a specific use with transfer of a steel bottle as an example ([0015])
Alternatively, Yu, in the same field of endeavor, related to clamping/holding arrangements, teaches of an arrangement with a hollow arc-shaped clamp (12, fig. 1, third reference character from left; [0014,0020], the hollow shape providing an opening at the center of the clamp on both sides, analogous to a slot between the two arc pieces). Yu teaches that this arrangement provides for firm and reliable clamping of different size pieces ([0014]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling ate of the claimed invention, to have modified Wei such that the second slot is open from side to side, using the teachings of Yu, for the purpose firm and reliable clamping.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Klann (EP 0168517 A1) and Klann (DE 102006003284 B3) are tools for compressing springs. Adams (US 9308634 B1) is an air brake service tool. Shi (CN 105856162 A) is an air brake mounting tool. Mckay (US 20200400518 A1) is a clamp that moves up/down and laterally for crop root sampling. Borner (US 5477598 A) is an arrangement that holds a spring at one end and presses it into a tube that is held on a second end. Li (CN 203956908 U) is a can transfer mechanical hand.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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 at 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 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights