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 5, 7-10, 15, and 23 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 5 recites the limitation "the internal plate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regard to claims 7-10, the claims states “the internal plate(s)” while parent claim 4 states “an internal plate”. It is unclear how many internal plates applicant is intending to claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the damping elastomer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regard to claim 23, the claims states “the vibrator device(s)” while parent claim 1 states “a vibrator device”. It is unclear how many vibrating devices applicant is intending to claim.
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 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raunisto (WO 2013132138 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Raunisto discloses a side grip pile driver (figs. 1,3) for driving elongated objects (18) into a ground surface comprising: a body (10) for attaching the pile driver to a working machine (pg. 1, lines 5-14); a first and second jaw member (multiple 2/7) moveably attached to the body (pg. 3, lines 14-25), each jaw member having a clamping interface (via 4) for clamping onto the side of an object to be driven (figs. 1,3); and a driving means (9) arranged to move at least one of the jaw members relative to the body and each other for clamping the object between the clamping interfaces of the jaw members via a clamping force in a direction that is orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of the object (fig. 1; pg. 3, lines 14-25), wherein each jaw member comprises: a jaw arm (7); and a gripping head (2), wherein the jaw arm is attached to the body and the gripping head (figs. 1,3), the gripping head providing the clamping interface (fig. 1), the jaw arm being attached to the gripping head via an elastomer member (6); wherein at least one of the gripping heads of the jaw members comprises a vibrator device (1) for vibrating the gripping head such that the gripping head is couplable to the object in vibratory engagement to allow mutual vibration between the gripping head and the object in a direction that is parallel with a longitudinal axis of the object when the object is clamped between the clamping interfaces (figs. 1,3; pg. 4, lines 6-13); and wherein the elastomer member is arranged to allow relative movement between the gripping head and the jaw arm in a direction that is parallel with a longitudinal axis of the object (fig. 1), whilst transferring the clamping force from the jaw arm to the gripping head (fig. 1).
With regard to 22, Raunisto further discloses both of the gripping heads of the jaw members comprise a vibrator device (fig. 1).
With regard to claim 23, Raunisto further discloses the vibrator devices are arranged such that the horizontal element of vibration is removed from the vibration generated from the vibrator device (pg. 2, lines 16-22).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 2-3, 11, 14-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raunisto (WO 2013132138 A1) in view of Jinnings et al. (2008/0310923).
With regard to claim 2, Raunisto discloses the invention substantially as claimed however fails to explicitly state the elastomer material mounted between a first and second end plate, the first end plate being connected to the jaw arm and the second end plate being connected to the gripping head.
Jinnings discloses having an elastomer material (34) mounted between a first and second end plate (fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raunisto and have the elastomer material mounted between a first and second end plate as taught in Jinnings, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide means to readily mount and dismount the elastomer material within the device.
With regard to claim 3, Raunisto, as modified, further discloses the elastomer material comprises a generally cylindrical shape, the elastomer material being mounted between the first and second end plates at ends of the cylindrical shape (Raunisto, fig. 1; Jinnings, fig. 6).
With regard to claim 11, Raunisto, as modified, further discloses the elastomer material is arranged provide a reduction in shear stiffness when the material is compressed (Raunisto, fig. 1).
With regard to claims 14-15, Raunisto discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding a damping elastomer attached between the jaw arm and the gripping head such that the damping elastomer is orthogonal to the elastomer member.
Jinnings further discloses a damping elastomer (46) attached between the jaw arm and the gripping head (figs. 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raunisto and utilize a damping elastomer attached between the jaw arm and the gripping head as taught in Jinnings, with a reasonable expectation of success, and the resultant combination creating a damping elastomer is orthogonal to the elastomer member, in order to further reduce vibration caused by the gear case.
With regard to claim 16, Raunisto discloses the invention substantially as claimed however fails to explicitly state each gripping head comprises a plurality of elastomer members.
Jinnings further discloses each gripping head comprises a plurality of elastomer members (multiple 34, 46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raunisto and utilize multiple elastomer members as taught in Jinnings, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to further reduce vibration caused by the gear case.
With regard to claim 17, Raunisto, as modified, further discloses the plurality of elastomer members are arranged along a longitudinal axis of the gripping head (Jinnings, figs. 6-7).
With regard to claim 19, Raunisto, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding the plurality of elastomer members are arranged to transfer a total clamping force of between 240 kN and 1200 kN between the jaw arms and the gripping heads. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have any desired clamping force to include between 240kN and 1200kN based on the design conditions at hand and an artisan of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Applicant’s specification has not stated any criticality to these values and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raunisto (WO 2013132138 A1) in view of Jinnings et al. (2008/0310923) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of McLaughlin (2012/0001373 ).
With regard to claims 4-5, Raunisto, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding the elastomer member comprises an internal plate in the elastomer material between the first and second end plate for increasing the compressive load capacity of the elastomer member.
McLaughlin discloses an elastomer member (fig. 4) comprises an internal plate (18) in the elastomer material (16) between a first and second end plate (12/14) for increasing the compressive load capacity of the elastomer member (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Raunisto and utilize an internal plate is the elastomer member as taught in McLaughlin, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase the lifespan of the elastomer member.
With regard to claim 6, Raunisto, as modified, further discloses the elastomer member comprises a second internal plate in the elastomer material (McLaughlin, fig. 4).
With regard to claim 7, Raunisto, as modified, further discloses the end plates and the internal plates are generally equidistance from one another (McLaughlin, fig. 4).
With regard to claim 8, Raunisto, as modified, further discloses the internal plates are generally parallel with the first and second end plate (McLaughlin, fig. 4).
With regard to claim 9, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that by modifying Raunisto to have internal plate, the plates would be circular to complement to the circular elastomer member.
With regard to claim 10, Raunisto, as modified, further discloses the internal plates are generally coaxial with the elastomer material (McLaughlin, fig. 4).
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raunisto (WO 2013132138 A1).
With regard to claim 20, Raunisto discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding the plurality of elastomer members are arranged to provide a total shear stiffness of between 1250 N/mm and 10000 N/mm between the jaw arms and the gripping heads. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have any desired shear stiffness to include between 1250 N/mm and 10000 N/mm based on the design conditions at hand and an artisan of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Applicant’s specification has not stated any criticality to these values and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 21, Raunisto discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding the elastomer member is arranged to deflect between 5mm and 20mm under a compressive load from the driving means. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have any deflecting value to include between 5mm and 20mm based on the design conditions at hand and an artisan of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Applicant’s specification has not stated any criticality to these values and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN F FIORELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7012. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM 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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571)270-5281. 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.
/BENJAMIN F FIORELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
BF
2/3/2026