DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I and Species B in the reply filed on September 2, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 11 and 12 are directed towards the clamping device of Invention I, rather than the method of Invention II. Examiner recognizes the argument and agrees that claims 11 and 12 are included in Invention I. However, claim 10 is still directed towards the method of Invention II and, therefore, is withdrawn.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on September 2, 2026.
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:
‘working machine’ recited in claim 1
“testing machine” recited in claims 1 and 9
“clamping elements” recited in claim 1
“activation elements” recited in claim 1
“insertion element” recited in claim 2
“compensation mechanism” recited in claim 4
“transmission member” recited in claim 5
“calculating unit” recited in claim 8
“sliding element” recited in claims 5, 7, and 11
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.
The limitation ‘working machine’ invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“machine”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“working” or ‘for working’).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The limitation “testing machine” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“machine”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“testing” or ‘for testing’).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “testing machine” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a testing slide that is shiftable along a spatial axis,’ as taught by the Specification (page 18, first paragraph), or an equivalent thereof.
The limitation ‘clamping element’ invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“element”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“clamping” or ‘for clamping’).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The limitation ‘activation element’ invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“element”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“independently movable relative to the basic body at least in a direction parallel to the central axis”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The limitation “insertion element” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“element”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“provided for the engagement in a clamping element to fix the clamping element in a direction parallel to the central axis”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “insertion element” will be interpreted to comprise ‘a cylindrical pin or fin like protrusion,’ as taught by the Specification (page 7, last paragraph), or an equivalent thereof.
The limitation “compensation mechanism” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“mechanism”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“provided to compensate a difference in the position of the coupling elements in the direction of the central axis and therefore a difference in the distance between clamping elements disposed opposite of each other radial to the central axis”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “compensation mechanism” will be interpreted to comprise ‘at least two transmission members comprising a chain link or a planar disk having a first bore on a first end and a second bore on a second end,’ as taught by the Specification (page 15, second paragraph and page 16, second paragraph), or an equivalent thereof.
The limitation ‘transmission member’ invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“member”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“linearly shiftable relative to the sliding rail at a second end disposed opposite of the first end in the direction of the member axis”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation ‘transmission member’ will be interpreted to comprise ‘a chain link or a planar disk having a first bore on a first end and a second bore on a second end,’ as taught by the Specification (page 15, second paragraph and page 16, second paragraph), or an equivalent thereof.
The limitation “calculating unit” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“unit”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“calculating” or ‘for calculating’ and “configured to calculate a volume model from a plurality of images and to inspect or measure the volume model according to at least one test specification”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The limitation “sliding element” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“element”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“sliding” or ‘for sliding’ and/or “movable in the direction of the central axis by the actuator”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “sliding element” will be interpreted to comprise ‘at least one sliding rail,’ as taught by the Specification (page 15, first paragraph), or an equivalent thereof.
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 – 9, 11, and 12 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 recites the limitation “the connection” in the first paragraph of the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “a guide” in the second paragraph of the body of the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to one of the “at least four guides” previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth an additional ‘guide’ which is separate and independent from the ‘at least four guides’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to refer to one of the ‘at least four guides’ previously set forth in the claim.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the guide supports and guides the clamping element ...” in the second paragraph of the body of the claim. The limitation is indefinite for several reasons. First, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends “the guide” to refer to one of the ‘at least four guides’ previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends “the guide” to refer to the ‘a guide’ previously set forth in the paragraph. Secondly, Examiner notes that the claim is directed towards “a clamping device.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require a step of ‘the guide supporting and guiding the clamping element,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method for clamping,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth functional language of the ‘guide,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘clamping element’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation such that “the guide” refers to the ‘guide’ previously set forth in the paragraph of the claim, and the limitation further sets forth functional language of the ‘guide.’
Each of claims 1 and 2 recites the limitation “the clamping element” multiple times in the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to one of the “at least four clamping elements” previously set forth in the claim or whether Applicant intends to set forth an additional ‘clamping element’ which is separate and independent from the ‘at least four clamping elements.’ It is further unclear as to whether Applicant intends each recitation of “the clamping element” to refer to the same ‘clamping element’ or whether Applicant intends each recitation of “the clamping element” to refer to a different ‘clamping element.’
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “a linear degree or freedom” in the second paragraph of the body of the claim. Applicant’s intent regarding the limitation is generally unclear. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a linear degree of freedom.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “two clamping elements” twice in the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to two of the ‘at least four clamping elements’ previously set forth in the claim or whether Applicant intends to set forth ‘two clamping elements’ which are separate and independent from the ‘clamping elements’ previously set forth. It is further unclear as to whether Applicant intends the second recitation of “two clamping elements” to refer to the first recitation of ‘two clamping elements,’ or whether Applicant intends the second recitation of ‘two clamping elements’ to be separate from the first recitation of ‘two clamping elements.’
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the coupling element.” in the third paragraph of the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the circumferential direction.” in the third paragraph of the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a coupling surface” in the third paragraph of the body of the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘coupling surface’ previously recited in the claim, or whether Applicant intends to set forth an additional ‘coupling surface’ which is separate and independent from the ‘coupling surface’ previously set forth.
Claims 1 and 2 each recite the limitation “a clamping element” the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitations to refer to one of the ‘clamping element(s)’ previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends to set forth an additional ‘clamping element’ which is separate and independent from the ‘clamping element(s)’ previously set forth. It is further unclear as to whether Applicant intends each of the recitations of ‘a clamping element’ to refer to the same ‘a clamping element,’ or whether Applicant intends each recitation of the ‘a clamping element’ to refer to a different ‘a clamping element.’
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “each transmission element” in the third paragraph of the body of the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to each of the ‘two transmission elements’ previously recited in the claim, or whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to ‘transmission elements’ other than those previously set forth.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “an activation element” in the last paragraph of the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to one of the ‘at least two activation elements’ previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends to set forth an additional ‘activation element’ which is separate and independent from the ‘activation elements’ previously set forth.
Claims 1 and 3 each recite the limitation “the coupling element” at least once in the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to one of the “two coupling elements” previously set forth in the claim or whether Applicant intends to set forth an additional ‘coupling element’ which is separate and independent from the ‘two coupling elements.’ It is further unclear as to whether Applicant intends each recitation of “the coupling element” to refer to the same ‘coupling element’ or whether Applicant intends each recitation of “the coupling element” to refer to a different ‘coupling element.’
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “one coupling surface” in the last paragraph of the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘coupling surface’ previously recited in claim 1, or whether Applicant intends to set forth an additional ‘coupling surface’ which is separate and independent from the ‘coupling surface’ previously set forth.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the direction radial to the central axis” in the last paragraph of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 further recites the limitation “the engagement.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 further recites the limitation “a direction parallel to the central axis.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘direction parallel to the central axis’ previously set forth in claim 1, or whether Applicant intends the set forth a second ‘direction’ which is separate and independent from the ‘direction’ previously set forth.
Claim 2 further recites the limitation “the coupling surface.” Examiner notes that claim 1 previously set forth a plurality of ‘coupling surfaces.’ This can be found because claim 1 sets forth ‘at least four clamping elements,’ wherein each of the ‘at least four clamping elements’ comprise ‘at least one coupling surface.’ Therefore, it is unclear as to which of the ‘coupling surfaces’ Applicant intends the limitation to refer to.
Claim 3 further recites the limitation “each support.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘two supports’ previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to ‘supports’ other than those previously set forth.
Claim 3 further recites the limitation “a transmission element.” It is generally unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to at least one of the ‘transmission elements’ previously set forth in claim 1, or whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth a ‘transmission element’ which is separate and independent from the ‘transmission elements’ previously set forth.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the distance between clamping elements.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claims 5 and 6 each recite the limitation “an activation element.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitations to refer to at least one of the ‘activation elements’ previously set forth in claim 1, or whether Applicant intends to set forth an additional ‘activation element’ which is separate and independent from the ‘activation elements’ previously set forth.
Claims 5 and 7 each recite the limitation “the sliding element.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 further recites the limitation “the sliding rail.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 further recites the limitation “the direction of the member axis.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the central portion.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 further recites the limitation “the central portions.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the camera transmits captured images ...” Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is directed towards “a testing device.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require a step of ‘transmitting captured images,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method for optically inspecting or measuring an object,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the “camera,” such that the claim is directed toward the ‘testing device’ itself.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the testing machine rotates the object receptacle ...” Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is directed towards “a testing device.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require a step of ‘rotating the object receptacle,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method for optically inspecting or measuring an object,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the “testing machine,” such that the claim is directed toward the ‘testing device’ itself.
Claim 9 further recites the limitation “wherein the camera captures a plurality of images ...” Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is directed towards “a testing device.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require a step of ‘capturing a plurality of images,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method for optically inspecting or measuring an object,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the “camera,” such that the claim is directed toward the ‘testing device’ itself.
As explained above, each of the claim limitations ‘working machine,’ ‘clamping element,’ ‘activation element,’ and “calculating unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Regarding the limitation ‘working machine,’ while the Specification provides antecedent basis for the limitation and the claimed function (page 3, first paragraph), the Specification fails to teach sufficient structure for the limitation to perform the claimed function. Regarding the limitation ‘clamping element,’ while the Specification provides antecedent basis for the limitation and the claimed function (page 4, fourth paragraph), the Specification fails to teach sufficient structure for the limitation to perform the claimed function. Regarding the limitation ‘activation element,’ while the Specification provides antecedent basis for the limitation and the claimed function (page 5, first and second paragraphs), the Specification fails to teach sufficient structure for the limitation to perform the claimed function. Regarding the limitation “calculating unit,” while the Specification provides antecedent basis for the limitation and the claimed function (page 19, last paragraph – page 20, first paragraph), the Specification fails to teach sufficient structure for the limitation to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As explained above, each of the claim limitations ‘working machine,’ ‘clamping element,’ ‘activation element,’ and “calculating unit” invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As further explained above, the Specification fails to teach sufficient structure for the limitations to perform their respective functions. Therefore, the limitations are not described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Marple (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0327201) teaches a clamping device comprising: a basic body that extends along a central axis and includes four guides disposed opposite of each other in pair which extend radial to the central axis; four clamping elements where are introduced into respective guides, two coupling elements each of which are kinematically coupled to a respective one of the clamping elements, and two activation elements connected to a respective one of the coupling elements.
Merete (German Patent Number DE 20007116 U1, cited in IDS) teaches a clamping device comprising: a basic body that extends along a central axis and includes four guides disposed opposite of each other in pair which extend radial to the central axis; four clamping elements where are introduced into respective guides, two coupling elements each of which are kinematically coupled to a respective one of the clamping elements, and two activation elements connected to a respective one of the coupling elements.
Nicholson (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0094360) teaches a clamping device comprising: a basic body that extends along a central axis and includes four guides disposed opposite of each other in pair which extend radial to the central axis; four clamping elements where are introduced into respective guides, two coupling elements each of which are kinematically coupled to a respective one of the clamping elements, and two activation elements connected to a respective one of the coupling elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (EST).
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights