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 § 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, 2, and 4-7 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the respective pivot” in line 6 lacks antecedent basis. Examiner believe the limitation should read “the respective pivot point of each jaw element” to ensure that it is clear that the limitation is referring to the two pivot points previously claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michel (DE102006005636). Note: References to the specification will be made using the provided translation.
Regarding claim 1, Michel teaches (Figures 3-5) a pincer having a pincer head. The pincer head includes a base element (45) and two jaw elements (25) pivotally attached to the base element at their own respective pivot points. The jaw elements each include a jaw end (27 nearest 15 in Figure 3) and a rear end on a side opposite each jaw element’s respective pivot point. A wedge element (49, 51, 53, 63, and 64; pg. 3 of translation paragraph, paragraph beginning “In the 3 is the control disk 49…”) is mounted on the base element so as to be movable in a longitudinal direction (up and down in Figures 3-5) by a pressurizing agent (hydraulic cylinder 29 and rod 41). The wedge element is configured to separate the rear ends of the jaw elements (see Figures 3-5) when being pressed in the longitudinal direction so as to move each of the jaw ends during a stroke of the piston rod. The speed at which each jaw end rotates about the pivot can be different as the wedge element can move to more fully engage one of the jaw elements (via elements 64). Michel further teaches the wedge element (41 and 49) includes a rear element (51 and 53) guided in the longitudinal direction (Figures 3-5) and a front element (49) configured to be pivoted by a difference of counterforces exerted on the rear ends of the jaws.
Regarding claim 4, Michel teaches the rear element (51 and 53) and the front element (49) each have surfaces (surfaces that contact each other during use) that stop pivoting at a predetermined maximum pivot angle, i.e. member 49 moving to the left or right of axis 48.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel in view of Wilson (U.S Patent No. 3,630,391).
Michel teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above except the wedge element having wedge surfaces of different slopes.
Wilson teaches (Figures 5-8) a pincer (A, E, and H) having a pincer head (E and H). The pincer head includes a base element (H) and two jaw elements (42 and 44) pivotally attached (via 54) to the base element. The jaw elements each include a jaw end (60 and 62) and a rear end (generally located at 56 and 58) on a side opposite the pivot point. A wedge element (34) is mounted on the base element so as to be movable in a longitudinal direction (left and right in Figures 5-8; See Figures 2 and 3 for movement of the wedge element 34) by a pressurizing agent (via piston rod 30). The wedge element (34) includes wedge surfaces of different slopes (see 82 vs 78 and 94 vs 102 in Figures 5-8; Col. 5, lines 18-75). Utilizing wedge surfaces with different slopes allows a workpiece to be rapidly gripped and then allow the gripping pressure to be more slowly increased (Col. 5, lines 35-41; Col. 6, lines 10-25).
Based on the teachings of Wilson it would have been obvious to have modified Michel to make the surfaces of the wedge element have differing slopes to allow for quick gripping while still allowing for a slow increase in gripping pressure.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel in view of Weidemann (U.S Patent No. 898,708), Emery (U.S Patent No. 126,384), or Lisota (U.S Patent No. 2,704,476).
Regarding claim 6, Michel teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above except there being a socket connection between the front element and rear element where the front element also has a neck portion and a joint head that connects via the socket connection to the rear element.
Weideman (Figures 1 and 2; members c’ and d), Emery (Figure 1; members f and e) , and Lisota (Figure 2; members 25 and 26) disclose that in clamping/shearing tools with movable jaws it is extremely common to utilize a ball and socket arrangement that are designed to impart rotational/translational movement of the jaws. Weideman further identifies that the joint head portion can have a neck extending therefrom that then engages another portion of the device pivotaly.
Based on the teachings of Weideman, Emery, and Lisota, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Michel to try a ball and socket connection between the front and rear elements provide the ball with the necessary neck and head for engagement with necessary contact surfaces. Doing so would have yielded the predictable result of helping constrain the front element when pivoting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 5 sets forth that the contact area between the rear and front elements of the wedge increases with increasing differences in counterforces. Because member 49 of Michele is a cylinder it would only contact a portion of the rear element at a tangent and therefore would never increase in surface area contact based on an increase in difference in counter-force. Further, there appears to be no reason to modify Michel to come up with the invention as claimed in claim 5.
Claim 7 requires the jaw elements to have rollers. While Wilson does teach (Figures 5-8) the rear ends of the jaw elements having rollers (56 and 58) they are utilized because the jaw elements directly contact the wedge element (34). Michel does not function in this manner as the jaw elements (25) do not make sliding contact with the wedge element (49, 51, 53, and 64). Instead the jaw elements are pushed up via pins (55). As such it would be improper hindsight to incorporate the teachings of Wilson to Modify Michel to come up with the invention of claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments directed to the 102 rejection utilizing Michel, examiner never indicated either 51 or 53 were pivotable and agrees that both move longitudinally. Examiner indicated member 49 was being considered the front element and was pivoting. There is no specific structure in the claim with respect to the indication of the front and rear elements that prohibits this interpretation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD F LANDRUM whose telephone number is (571)272-5567. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
