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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification must provide antecedent basis for “the stationary clamping means” of claim 11.
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.
Claim 1: In line 5, the claim recites “fastening means...for fastening to the workpiece”. The recited fastening means is construed to cover a ball joint, metal bellows, or equivalents thereof.
Claim 3: In line 5, the claim recites “clamping means”. The recited clamping means is construed to cover at least one radial spring actuated hydraulically, pneumatically, electromechanically, or equivalents thereof.
Claim 5: In line 4, the claim recites “clamping means”. The recited clamping means is construed to cover at least one radial spring actuated hydraulically, pneumatically, electromechanically, or equivalents thereof.
Claim 8: In line 4, the claim recites “fastening means”. The recited fastening means is construed to cover a ball joint, metal bellows, or equivalents thereof.
Claim 11: In line 3, the claim recites “a stationary clamping means”. It is difficult to properly construe this limitation because “a stationary clamping means” is not described within applicant’s specification. The examiner believes this limitation may more properly read “a fixed clamping means”, as “a fixed clamping means” is described in applicant’s disclosure. If this limitation were interpreted to refer “a fixed clamping means”, the limitations would be construed to cover a clamp capable of holding a workpiece relative to a workbed, or the equivalents thereof.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 and 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1: In lines 3 and 35 the reference character “Zo” should be in parenthesis.
Claim 1: In line 39, the transitional phrase “characterized in that” is used. The use of the transitional phrase “characterized in that” does not follow US patent claim drafting style.
Claim 2: In line 2, the transitional phrase “characterized in that” is used. The use of the transitional phrase “characterized in that” does not follow US patent claim drafting style.
Claim 3: In line 2, the transitional phrase “characterized in that” is used. The use of the transitional phrase “characterized in that” does not follow US patent claim drafting style.
Claim 4: In line 2, the transitional phrase “characterized in that” is used. The use of the transitional phrase “characterized in that” does not follow US patent claim drafting style.
Claim 7: In line 2, the transitional phrase “characterized in that” is used. The use of the transitional phrase “characterized in that” does not follow US patent claim drafting style.
Claim 8: In line 12, the claim recites “in question”. The examiner recommends deleting this phrase.
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 1-13 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: In line 9, the claim recites “the outer side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1: In line 10, the claim recites “its inner side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further it is unclear which previously set forth feature within the claim “its” refers to.
Claim 1: A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1, line 20 recites the broad recitation “reduced”, and the claim also recites “eliminated” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 1: In line 23, the claim recites “the axial direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1: In line 28, the claim recites “a spherically shape inner side”. It is unclear if this “inner side” is the same “inner side” previously set forth in the claim, or a second and different “inner side” than previously set forth.
Claim 1: In line 41, the claim recites “the direction of the housing axis”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2: A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2, line 3 recites the broad recitation “partially”, and the claim also recites “completely” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 2: In line 5, the claim recites “the circumferential direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3: In line 3, the claim recites “the direction of the housing axis”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4: A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4, line 4 recites the broad recitation “partially”, and the claim also recites “completely” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 4: In line 5, the claim recites “the circumferential direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5: In line 2, the claim recites “a housing”. It is unclear if this “housing” is the same “housing” previously set forth in the claim, or a second and different “housing” than previously set forth.
Claim 5: In line 8, the claim recites “the radial direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5: In line 9, the claim recites “the radial spring”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5: In line 10, the claim recites “its radial outer end”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further it is unclear which previously set forth feature within the claim “its” refers to.
Claim 5: In line 21, the claim recites “the shaft axis”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8: In line 4, the claim recites “the spherical clamp”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8: In line 7, the claim recites “the clamped state”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8: A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5, line 12 recites the broad recitation “reduce”, and the claim also recites “eliminate” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 8: In line 13, the claim recites “the stresses prevailing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8: In line 13, the claim recites “the clamping position”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9: In line 5, the claim recites “at least one spherical clamp”. It is unclear if this “spherical clamp” is the same “spherical clamp” previously set forth in the claim, or a second and different “spherical clamp” than previously set forth.
Claim 9: In line 6, the claim recites “the newly occupied compensating position”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10: In line 4, the claim recites “at least one spherical clamp”. It is unclear if this “spherical clamp” is the same “spherical clamp” previously set forth in the claim, or a second and different “spherical clamp” than previously set forth.
Claim 11: In line 2, the claim recites “at least one section of the workpiece”. It is unclear if this “one section” is the same “one section” previously set forth in the claim, or a second and different “one section” than previously set forth.
Claim 11: In lines 3-4, the claim recites “a stationary clamping means”. It is unclear if this clamping means is the same clamping means of claims 3 and 5 or a different “clamping means”.
Claim 11: In line 4, the claim recites “at least one spherical clamp”. It is unclear if this “spherical clamp” is the same “spherical clamp” previously set forth in the claim, or a second and different “spherical clamp” than previously set forth.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections and objections above. US 8,123,233 B2 of Hofmann is the closest prior art of record. Hofmann discloses a spherical clamp (1 of Figure 1) including a shaft (2 of Figure 1) that is also a fastening means, a clamping mechanism (6, 4, 8 of Figure 1), but fails to provide a ball clamp that clamps against the shaft.
The aforedescribed prior art being representative of the closest prior art of record, for at least the foregoing reasoning, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the present invention as set forth in independent claims 1 and 8.
Also, there is no combinable teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to so modify the teachings of Hofmann in order to correct the deficiencies identified above, and thus, for at least the foregoing reasoning, Hofmann does not render obvious the present invention as set forth in independent claims 1 and 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hofmann, US 7,861,830 B2 teaches a clamping mechanism 6,7 that clamps against a shaft 2. Hofmann US 7,392,886 B2 teaches a clamping mechanism 31,17 that clamps against a shaft 33.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON L VAUGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5704. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/JASON L VAUGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights