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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because reference numeral 14 for the plate-shaped base element is not found in the Figures and because the line in Figures 1 and 2 demarcating the longitudinal direction “D” is not sufficiently dark to permit reproduction. See 11.13 Special Requirements for Drawings - Appendix T Patent Cooperation Treaty. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the two jaw elements being attached via the same pivot point as set forth in lines 4 and 5 of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-7 in the amendment filed 9/6/2024 are missing their appropriate designations, i.e. “(amended)”
Claim 1: “ele-ments” should be “elements”
Claim 5: “be-tween” and “in-creases” should be “between” and “increases”
Claim 6: “(32”, “(30”, and “(38” should be “(32)”, “(30)”, and “(38)”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 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, as mentioned previously with respect to the drawings each of the jaws (16a and 16b) are described as being attached by their own respective pivots (161a and 161b). Lines 4 and 5 of claim 1 indicate instead they are attached to the same pivot. This is reinforced in line 6 that indicates “the pivot point”. Based on how the invention as described in the specification this claim language renders the scope of the claim unclear. For art rejections examiner will consider either a single pivot or two separate pivots as meeting the limitation.
Regarding claim 1, lines 10-11 discloses the wedge has “a stroke” that moves the jaw ends. Line 12 then indicates “the strokes” which lacks antecedent basis. In addition, since the wedge has a single stroke it is unclear what applicant is intending to claim with “strokes”. The definition of “stroke” is: is:
“the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (such as a piston) having a reciprocating motion
also : the distance of such movement
In the instant case both jaws necessarily move the same direction and the same distance and therefore it is unclear how the stroke of either jaw is different.
Regarding claim 4, “the pivoting” lacks antecedent basis because it is unclear if this is referring to one of the two jaws of claim 1 or the front element of claim 3.
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, 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilson (U.S Patent No. 3,630,391).
Regarding claim 1, 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 is configured to separate the rear ends of the jaw elements (see Figures 2 and 3) 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 is different as the wedge means utilizes differently shaped cam surfaces (see 82 vs 78 and 94 vs 102 in Figures 5-8).
Regarding claim 2, Wilson teaches (Figures 5-8) the wedge (34) includes wedge surfaces of different slopes (see 82 vs 78 and 94 vs 102 in Figures 5-8; Col. 5, lines 18-75)
Regarding claim 7, Wilson teaches (Figures 5-8) the rear ends of the jaw elements are provided with rollers (56 and 58).
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).
Regarding claim 3, Michel 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 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
Claim 5 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Briegel (U.S Patent No. 2,035,686), Benedict (U.S Patent No. 1,733,773), Rittenhouse (U.S Patent No. 474,566), Johnson (U.S Patent No. 1,506,643), Alger et al. (U.S Patent No. 747,833), Clair (U.S Patent No. 2,552,519), Tomlinson (U.S Patent No. 422,662), and Sticht (U.S Patent No. 5,007,796) teach elements of the claimed invention.
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
Prosecution Insights