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
Claim 17 is 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.
The claims are indefinite, vague, awkarldy, confusingly worded and/or lacking proper antecedent basis:
Claim 17 does not configure the parts correctly. The stem head and knob are different elements of the device. IN claim 1 the stem is describe as internal and head is an external portion of the device so as stated the modification does configure the parts correctly.
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) 1-2, 4-9, 11-13, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Warth 8454004.
Warth discloses the claimed invention as shown below in claims:
A clamp comprising: a frame 52 & 53; a first jaw 56 coupled to the frame and fixed in position relative to the frame; a second jaw 54 coupled to the frame opposite the first jaw and slidable relative to the frame; a stem 66 extending at least partially through a stem aperture 1000 in the frame and engaged with the second jaw, the stem translatable relative to the frame along a stem axis and rotatable about the stem axis; a stem head 2000 coupled to the stem, the stem aperture being sized to prevent the stem head from passing entirely therethrough; and a biasing element 94 biasing the second jaw towards the first jaw, wherein the second jaw is capable of translating relative to the frame along the stem axis in response to translation of the stem without rotating about the stem axis. See Fig.4 second jaw moves linearly
PNG
media_image1.png
542
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
2. The clamp of claim 1, wherein the first jaw and second jaw each include inner surfaces facing towards one another and having generally the same radius of curvature. Both jaws have Zero radius of curvature
3. The clamp of claim 2, wherein the first jaw and second jaw when in a closed position form an arc. 103
4. The clamp of claim 2, wherein the first jaw and second jaw extend upwardly from the frame and terminate at ends that are spaced from one another. See Fig.4
5. The clamp of claim 3, wherein when in the closed position the ends of each of the first jaw and second jar do not directly contact one another. See Fig.4
6. The clamp of claim 1, wherein the first jaw and second jaw each extends at least partially along a length of the frame in a direction transverse to the stem axis. See Fig.4
7. The clamp of claim 1, wherein translation of the stem head along the stem axis towards the stem aperture causes the biasing element to compress. See Fig.4 This is how the device works
8. The clamp of claim 7, wherein rotation of the stem head about the stem axis does not cause the biasing element 80 to compress. See Fig.7 with space or play inbetween the cam and spring mechanism 80
9. The clamp of claim 1, wherein the first jaw is a first fixed jaw and the second jaw is an adjustable jaw, the clamp further includes, a second fixed jaw coupled to the frame and fixed in position relative to the frame, the second fixed jaw being positioned opposite the adjustable jaw on the same side of the frame as the first fixed jaw. See Fig.5
11. The clamp of claim 1 further comprising: a pin 98 coupled to the second jaw and extending through a pin aperture of the frame, the pin aperture extending through a side surface of the frame opposite the stem aperture, the pin being translatable along the pin aperture in a direction generally parallel to the stem axis.
12. The clamp of claim 1, wherein the second jaw has a maximum travel distance defined at least partially by the stem head and rotation of the stem about the stem axis causes the maximum travel distance of the second jaw to be altered. See Fig.7
13. The clamp of claim 1, wherein the stem head is connected to the stem at a proximal receiving segment thereof and the stem is connected to the second jaw at a distal receiving segment thereof. See Fig.5
16. The clamp of claim 1, wherein the frame includes a channel 215 constraining movement of the second jaw relative to the frame in at least one direction.
17. The clamp of claim 1, wherein the stem head is a knob 60 having an outer diameter greater than an outer diameter of the stem aperture.
18. A clamp comprising: a frame; a first jaw 54 fixedly coupled to the frame; a second jaw 56 adjustably coupled to the frame, the second jaw being slidable toward or away from the first jaw along a linear axis; a stem 66 extending along the linear axis and through an aperture 1000 in the frame, the stem attached to the second jaw at a distal portion and attached to a stem head 2000 at a proximal portion, a distance between the stem head and second jaw capable of being adjusted to limit travel of the second jaw along the linear axis; and a biasing element 80 biasing the second jaw towards the first jaw, wherein movement of the stem head along the linear axis causes the second jaw to translate along the linear axis with the stem head and wherein rotation of the stem head about the linear axis causes a distance between the stem head and second jaw to be adjusted.
PNG
media_image1.png
542
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
19. The clamp of claim 18, wherein the second jaw capable of translating relative to the frame along the stem axis without rotating about the stem axis. See Fig.7 with space or play inbetween the cam and spring mechanism 80
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warth 8454004 in view of Snell 6152435.
Wrath discloses the claimed invention except for arc shaped jaws
Snell discloses a device a clamp having jaws within a channel on a top surface which allows for easy jaw removal and jaws having an arc shaped which allows circular shaped workpieces to be held along the contour and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Warth device by providing arc shape jaws with a top channel which allows circular workpiece along the contour and jaw replacablity to yield the predictable result of holding circular workpieces and jaw replacement. KSR
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: Applicant should claim jaws 104 and 120 as being unmovable and arch shaped on one side and serpentine on the other side in combination with the other essential limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The 892 form discloses prior art being made of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEE D WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4499. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6;30-4;30.
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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
LEE D. WILSON
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
Ldw
/LEE D WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 August 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights