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 Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
“thew” in line 2 of claim 5 should be corrected to --the--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner is interpreting “is gearing” as in claims 14 and 27 as comprises gears.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“electrical activation system” in claim 1 and “activation system” in claims 29 and 30. The specification lists corresponding structure as “a DC type motor 14a and gear box 14b with an output shaft 18” ([0044])
“driving system” in claim 1. The specification lists corresponding structure as a “hydraulic or pneumatic” system ([0014])
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 29 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.
In claim 29, it is unclear whether each module comprises a housing, an activation system, and a driven element or if the tool holder assembly comprises a housing such that there is only one activation system and driven element. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret claim 29 as though the tool holder assembly comprises a housing that contains an activation system and a driven system. Examiner also notes that they are interpreting “contains” as though it has the same scope as “comprises”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 9, 17 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rouweler et al. (US 2008/0040864), hereinafter referred to as Rouweler.
Re Claim 1, Rouweler discloses a tool holder assembly (Fig. 8) comprising:
a stationary portion (see Fig. 8, illustrated below) that partially defines a tool channel (cavity 5);
one or more movable portions situated opposite the stationary portion (upper part of safety member 4);
an electrical activation system (motor 41 and screw spindle 42) and a driving system (lower part of safety member 4, see Fig. 8, illustrated below), the electrical activation system operably coupled to the driving system (“The tool is furthermore provided with an electric motor 41, which drives a screw spindle 42, which screw spindle 42 connects to the safety member 4.” [0045]), the driving system being in communication with the one or more movable portions (the driving system and movable portion are integral), such that at least one of the one or more movable portions moves into the tool channel to secure tooling therein in response to the electrical activation system triggering the driving system (“By driving the motor 41 the safety member 4 can be moved between the tool locking position and the tool releasing position” [0045]).
PNG
media_image1.png
726
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 of Rouweler, illustrated
Re Claim 4, Rouweler discloses the assembly of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) wherein the stationary portion is on a front side of the tool holder assembly, whereas the one or more movable portions are on a rear side of the tool holder assembly (see Fig. 8, illustrated above).
Re Claim 5, Rouweler discloses the assembly of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) wherein the tool holder assembly has a front side located to one side of the tool channel and a rear side located to an opposite side of the tool channel, and thew driving system is located entirely on either the front side or the rear side of the tool holder assembly (driving system is on rear side).
Re Claim 6, Rouweler discloses the assembly of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) wherein the electrical activation system comprises a motor (motor 41) and a shaft (screw spindle 42), the shaft operably coupled to the driving system (Fig. 8) and configured to move in response to activation of the electrical activation system such that the shaft when so moved causes said triggering of the driving system (“By driving the motor 41 the safety member 4 can be moved between the tool locking position and the tool releasing position” [0045]).
Re Claim 9, Rouweler discloses the assembly of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above) wherein the driving system comprises a driven element (lower part of safety member 4, see Fig. 8, illustrated above), and wherein said movement of the shaft causes said triggering of the driving system by moving the driven element of the driving system, the driven element being in communication with the one or more movable portions via an intermediary (see Fig. 8, illustrated above).
Re Claim 17, Rouweler discloses a tool holder assembly (Fig. 8) comprising:
a stationary portion (see Fig. 8, illustrated below) that partially defines a tool channel (cavity 5);
one or more movable portions situated opposite the stationary portion (upper part of safety member 4);
a driving system (lower part of safety member 4, see Fig. 8, illustrated above) comprising a driven element (lower part of safety member 4, see Fig. 8, illustrated above) that is in communication with the one or more movable portions (upper part of safety member 4) via an intermediary (see Fig. 8, illustrated above), such that a movement of the driven element causes a movement of the intermediary which thereby causes at least one of the one or more movable portions to move into the tool channel to secure tooling therein “By driving the motor 41 the safety member 4 can be moved between the tool locking position and the tool releasing position” [0045]).
Re Claim 22, Rouweler discloses the assembly of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above) wherein the stationary portion is on a front side of the tool holder assembly, whereas the one or more movable portions are on a rear side of the tool holder assembly (see Fig. 8, illustrated above).
Re Claim 23, Rouweler discloses the assembly of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above) wherein the tool holder assembly has a front side located to one side of the tool channel and a rear side located to an opposite side of the tool channel, and the driving system is located entirely on either the front side or the rear side of the tool holder assembly (see Fig. 8, illustrated above).
Re Claim 24, Rouweler discloses the assembly of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above) further including an activation system comprising a shaft, the activation system operably coupled to the driving system such that the driven element moves in response to movement of the shaft (“the tool is furthermore provided with an electric motor 41, which drives a screw spindle 42, which screw spindle 42 connects to the safety member 4. By driving the motor 41 the safety member 4 can be moved between the tool locking position and the tool releasing position” [0045]).
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.
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) 1-6, 9-13, 15-26, and 28-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jansen et al. (US 2023/0302515), hereinafter referred to as Jansen, in view of Rouweler et al. (US 2008/0040864), hereinafter referred to as Rouweler, in view of “Fluid Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications” by Cengel et al.
Re Claim 1, Jansen discloses a tool holder assembly (clamping system 504) comprising:
a stationary portion (see Fig. 3c, illustrated below) that partially defines a tool channel (receiving space 510);
one or more movable portions (clamping element 512) situated opposite the stationary portion (Fig. 3c);
PNG
media_image2.png
706
720
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3C of Jansen
Jansen fails to disclose an electrical activation system and a driving system, the electrical activation system operably coupled to the driving system, the driving system being in communication with the one or more movable portions, such that at least one of the one or more movable portions moves into the tool channel to secure tooling therein in response to the electrical activation system triggering the driving system. While Jansen does disclose that the clamping elements move into the tool channel to secure tooling in response to the fluid entering the pressure chamber (“As such, the actuating member 211 works as a piston moveable in the pressure chamber 217 , which accordingly works as a cylinder. Accordingly, the actuating member 211 can be pushed towards its active position by introducing a fluid in the pressure chamber 217 . The pressure chamber 217 of this clamping system 204 is adapted for receiving a hydraulic liquid as pressure fluid, in order to move the actuating member 211” [0078]), Jansen, while disclosing where fluid enters the clamping system, does not disclose the sub-system that pressurizes the fluid (“In particular, the channel could itself form a conduit through which a fluid could flow to the at least one of the at least two cavities. Such a fluid could be a hydraulic or pneumatic fluid” [0023]).
Rouweler teaches a tool holder assembly (receiving structure 3) comprising electrical activation system (electric motor 41 and screw spindle 42) and a driving system (safety member 4), the electrical activation system operably coupled to the driving system (“tool is furthermore provided with an electric motor 41 , which drives a screw spindle 42 , which screw spindle 42 connects to the safety member 4. By driving the motor 41 the safety member 4 can be moved between the tool locking position and the tool releasing position” [0045]) in order to clamp a tool (Fig. 8).
Cengel teaches Pascal’s law, the notion that “pressure applied to a confined fluid increases the pressure throughout by the same amount” (Pg. 70), which can be practically applied by connecting two plates via a fluid intermediary in order to transfer force from one plate to the other (Fig. 3-10 on Pg. 71 shows a force being applied to plate 1 in order move plate 2).
Jansen discloses a structure that at least one of the one or more movable portions moves into the tool channel to secure tooling therein based on whether the fluid in the pressure chamber is in a low pressure state (shown in Fig. 7c) or in a high pressure state (shown in Fig. 7b), but does not disclose a mechanism that applies a high or low pressure state to the fluid. Rouweler teaches a motor and threaded spindle (screw spindle 42) that applies a force to a plate (safety member 4) in order to move said plate. Cengel teaches connecting two plates via a fluid intermediary in order to transfer force from one plate to the other. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jansen by placing the electrical activation system and driving system as taught by Rouweler in the channel of Jansen such that the driving system of Rouweler can apply a force to the actuating member of Jansen through the hydraulic intermediary (hose 536, pressure chamber 517 and “fluid” [0083]) as taught by Cengel in order to apply a force to the actuating member by applies a force to the clamping element in order to secure a tool.
Re Claim 2, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and Jansen further discloses that the driving system is a hydraulic system (“The pressure chamber 217 of this clamping system 204 is adapted for receiving a hydraulic liquid as pressure fluid, in order to move the actuating member 211 .” [0078]).
Re Claim 3, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and Jansen further discloses that the one or more movable portions comprise a plurality of movable portions, the movable portions (clamping element 512) comprising fingers (engaging tip 513) collectively aligned adjacently along a side of the assembly opposite the stationary portion (Figs. 4a and 4b show that “multiple pressure chambers 217 are lined up in the elongate beam 209 in its longitudinal direction L”, and each pressure chamber has its own movable portion, collectively constituting the plurality of movable portions [0080]).
Re Claim 4, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and Jansen further discloses that the stationary portion is on a front side of the tool holder assembly, whereas the one or more movable portions are on a rear side of the tool holder assembly (see Fig. 3c, illustrated above).
Re Claim 5, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and further discloses that the tool holder assembly has a front side located to one side of the tool channel and a rear side located to an opposite side of the tool channel, and thew driving system is located entirely on either the front side or the rear side of the tool holder assembly (Fig. 4a shows the driving system would be located on the rear side of the tool holder assembly).
Re Claim 6, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and further discloses that the electrical activation system (Rouweler, electric motor 41 and screw spindle 42) comprises a motor (Rouweler, electric motor 41) and a shaft (Rouweler, screw spindle), the shaft operably coupled to the driving system and configured to move in response to activation of the electrical activation system such that the shaft when so moved causes said triggering of the driving system (tool is furthermore provided with an electric motor 41 , which drives a screw spindle 42 , which screw spindle 42 connects to the safety member 4. By driving the motor 41 the safety member 4 can be moved between the tool locking position and the tool releasing position” [0045).
Re Claim 9, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), and further discloses that the driving system comprises a driven element (Rouweler, safety member 4), and wherein said movement of the shaft causes said triggering of the driving system by moving the driven element of the driving system (“tool is furthermore provided with an electric motor 41 , which drives a screw spindle 42 , which screw spindle 42 connects to the safety member 4. By driving the motor 41 the safety member 4 can be moved between the tool locking position and the tool releasing position” [0045]), the driven element being in communication with the one or more movable portions via an intermediary (Jansen, in view of Rouseler and Cengel, disclose that the safety member is in communication with the connecting member via the fluid, hose, and actuating member).
Re Claim 10, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above), and further discloses that the driven element (safety member 4) is housed within a cavity (channel 233) that is in fluid communication with the one or more movable portions (Fig. 4 shows the channel 233 is in fluid communication with pressure chambers 17 through a series of channels 229 and pressure chamber 217 is shown to be in communication with clamping element 212 in Fig. 3), at least part of the intermediary contained within the cavity such that the intermediary is between the driven element and the one or more movable portions (Figs. 4a and 4b).
Re Claim 11, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above), and Jansen further discloses that the intermediary comprises fluid (“hydraulic liquid as pressure fluid” [0078]).
Re Claim 12, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above), and wherein the driven element is a piston (the safety member 4, as incorporated into Jansen, in view of Rouwler and Cengel, is a piston because it is a plate within a tube, being channel 233, that moves against a liquid), the piston configured to move in a linear direction in response to said movement of the shaft of the electrical activation system (the safety member of Rouweler moves in a linear direction and is incorporated into Jensen in a linear channel, see Fig. 4, so it is still configured to move in a linear direction).
Re Claim 13, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above), and further discloses that the driven element is a pump component (the safety member 4, as incorporated into Jansen, in view of Rouwler and Cengel, is a pump because it moves liquid), the pump component configured to move in response to said movement of the shaft of the electrical activation system (Rouweler, “By driving the motor 41 the safety member 4 can be moved between the tool locking position and the tool releasing position” [0045]).
Re Claim 15, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above), and further discloses that the intermediary further comprises a flexible membrane (pneumatic hose 536) in contact with the one or more movable portions (Fig. 7 shows the hose in contact with actuating member 511 which is in contact with clamping element 512) and in communication with the fluid (“The pressure chamber 217 is formed by a pneumatic hose 536 which has a deformable wall. The hose 536 runs in the longitudinal direction L of the elongate beam 509 - 1 , 509 - 2 through a cavity 535 therein. The hose 536 expands when fluid is pressurized in the pressure chamber 517 , and contracts when pressure is released.” [0083]).
Re Claim 16, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 16 (see rejection of claim 15 above), wherein the flexible membrane is a bladder (pneumatic hose 536).
Re Claim 17, Jansen discloses a tool holder assembly (clamping system 504) comprising:
a stationary portion (see Fig. 3c, illustrated above) that partially defines a tool channel (receiving space 510);
one or more movable portions (clamping element 512) situated opposite the stationary portion (Fig. 3c).
an intermediary (hose 536 and fluid within it) that is in communication with the one or more movable portions such that a movement of the intermediary causes at least one of the one or more movable portions to move into the tool channel to secure tooling therein (“The hose 536 runs in the longitudinal direction L of the elongate beam 509 - 1 , 509 - 2 through a cavity 535 therein. The hose 536 expands when fluid is pressurized in the pressure chamber 517 , and contracts when pressure is released. As the hose 536 expands (see FIG. 7 B), it pushes the actuating member 511 to its active position.” [0083])
Jansen fails to disclose a driving system comprising a driven element that is in communication with the one or more movable portions via an intermediary, such that a movement of the driven element causes a movement of the intermediary which thereby causes at least one of the one or more movable portions to move into the tool channel to secure tooling therein. While Jansen does disclose that the clamping elements move into the tool channel to secure tooling in response to the fluid entering the pressure chamber (“As such, the actuating member 211 works as a piston moveable in the pressure chamber 217 , which accordingly works as a cylinder. Accordingly, the actuating member 211 can be pushed towards its active position by introducing a fluid in the pressure chamber 217 . The pressure chamber 217 of this clamping system 204 is adapted for receiving a hydraulic liquid as pressure fluid, in order to move the actuating member 211” [0078]), Jansen does not disclose the sub-system that pressurizes the fluid (“In particular, the channel could itself form a conduit through which a fluid could flow to the at least one of the at least two cavities. Such a fluid could be a hydraulic or pneumatic fluid” [0023]).
Rouweler teaches a tool holder assembly (receiving structure 3) comprising electrical activation system (electric motor 41 and screw spindle 42) and a driving system (safety member 4), the electrical activation system operably coupled to the driving system (“tool is furthermore provided with an electric motor 41 , which drives a screw spindle 42 , which screw spindle 42 connects to the safety member 4. By driving the motor 41 the safety member 4 can be moved between the tool locking position and the tool releasing position” [0045]) in order to clamp a tool (Fig. 8).
Cengel teaches Pascal’s law, the notion that “pressure applied to a confined fluid increases the pressure throughout by the same amount” (Pg. 70), which can be practically applied by connecting a driven element (plate 1) with one or more movable portions (plate 2) via an intermediary such that a movement of the driven element causes a movement of the intermediary which thereby causes at least one of the one or more movable portions (Fig. 3-10 on Pg. 71 shows a force being applied to plate 1 in order move plate 2 via a fluid).
Jansen discloses a structure that at least one of the one or more movable portions moves into the tool channel to secure tooling therein based on whether the fluid in the pressure chamber is in a low pressure state (shown in Fig. 7c) or in a high pressure state (shown in Fig. 7b), but does not disclose a mechanism that applies a high or low pressure state to the fluid. Rouweler teaches a motor and threaded spindle (screw spindle 42) that applies a force to a plate (safety member 4) in order to move said plate. Cengel teaches connecting two plates via a fluid intermediary in order to transfer force from one plate to the other. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jansen by placing the electrical activation system and driving system as taught by Rouweler in the channel of Jansen (“The channel may be used to supply the cavities or components therein with appropriate in- and/or output, for instance by running conduits and/or wiring through the channel. In particular, the channel could itself form a conduit through which a fluid could flow to the at least one of the at least two cavities. Such a fluid could be a hydraulic or pneumatic fluid” [0022]) such that the driving system of Rouweler can apply a force to the actuating member of Jansen through the hydraulic intermediary (hose 536, pressure chamber 517 and “fluid” [00832]) as taught by Cengel in order to apply a force to the actuating member by applies a force to the clamping element in order to secure a tool.
Re Claim 18, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above) wherein the driving system is a hydraulic system (“The pressure chamber 217 of this clamping system 204 is adapted for receiving a hydraulic liquid as pressure fluid, in order to move the actuating member 211 .” [0078]).
Re Claim 19, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above) and further discloses a housing (beam 509) and an electrical activation system (Rouweler, motor 41 and spindle 42), the electrical activation system operably coupled to the driving system (“tool is furthermore provided with an electric motor 41 , which drives a screw spindle 42 , which screw spindle 42 connects to the safety member 4. By driving the motor 41 the safety member 4 can be moved between the tool locking position and the tool releasing position” [0045]) and located within the housing of the tool holder assembly (After incorporation into Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, as explained in rejection to claim 17, the motor and spindle are located in the beam).
Re Claim 20, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above) and further discloses further comprising a housing (beam 509), the driven element is located within the housing of the tool holder assembly (After incorporation into Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, as explained in rejection to claim 17, the safety member is located in the beam), and at least part of the intermediary is contained within a cavity of the housing such that the intermediary is between the driven element and the one or more movable portions (Fig. 7B shows the hose 536 in cavity 535).
Re Claim 21, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above) wherein the intermediary comprises fluid (“The pressure chamber 217 of this clamping system 204 is adapted for receiving a hydraulic liquid as pressure fluid, in order to move the actuating member 211 .” [0078]).
Re Claim 22, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above) wherein the stationary portion is on a front side of the tool holder assembly, whereas the one or more movable portions are on a rear side of the tool holder assembly (see Fig. 3c, illustrated above).
Re Claim 23, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above) wherein the tool holder assembly has a front side located to one side of the tool channel and a rear side located to an opposite side of the tool channel, and the driving system is located entirely on either the front side or the rear side of the tool holder assembly (see Fig. 3c, illustrated above).
Re Claim 24, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above) and further discloses an activation system (electric motor 41 and screw spindle 42) comprising a shaft (screw spindle 42), the activation system operably coupled to the driving system such that the driven element moves in response to movement of the shaft (“tool is furthermore provided with an electric motor 41 , which drives a screw spindle 42 , which screw spindle 42 connects to the safety member 4. By driving the motor 41 the safety member 4 can be moved between the tool locking position and the tool releasing position” [0045]).
Re Claim 25, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 24 (see rejection of claim 24 above) wherein the driven element is a piston (the safety member 4, as incorporated into Jansen, in view of Rouwler and Cengel, is a piston because it is a plate within a tube, being channel 233, that moves against a liquid), the piston configured to move in a linear direction in response to said movement of the shaft (the safety member of Rouweler moves in a linear direction and is incorporated into Jensen in a linear channel, see Fig. 4, so it is still configured to move in a linear direction ; “tool is furthermore provided with an electric motor 41 , which drives a screw spindle 42 , which screw spindle 42 connects to the safety member 4. By driving the motor 41 the safety member 4 can be moved between the tool locking position and the tool releasing position” [0045]).
Re Claim 26, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 24 (see rejection of claim 24 above) wherein the driven element is a pump component (the safety member 4, as incorporated into Jansen, in view of Rouwler and Cengel, is a pump because it moves liquid), the pump component configured to move in response to said movement of the shaft (Rouweler, “tool is furthermore provided with an electric motor 41 , which drives a screw spindle 42 , which screw spindle 42 connects to the safety member 4. By driving the motor 41 the safety member 4 can be moved between the tool locking position and the tool releasing position” [0045]).
Re Claim 28, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 21 (see rejection of claim 21 above) and Jansen further discloses that the intermediary further comprises a flexible membrane (hose 536) in contact with the one or more movable portions (Fig. 7) and in communication with the fluid (“The hose 536 expands when fluid is pressurized in the pressure chamber 517 , and contracts when pressure is released.” [0083]).
Re Claim 29, Jansen discloses a tool holder assembly (clamping system 504) comprising:
a plurality of modules (“multiple pressure chambers 217 are lined up in the elongate beam 209 in its longitudinal direction L” [0080]) operably linked together (“The pressure chambers 217 are connect to each other, i.e. interconnected, via interconnections consisting of channels 229 extending between side walls 230 of adjacent pressure chambers 217 ” [0080]), each module comprising:
a stationary portion (see Fig. 3c, illustrated below) that partially defines a tool channel (receiving space 510);
one or more movable portions (clamping element 512) situated opposite the stationary portion (Fig. 3c);
a housing (beam 509) that contains an intermediary (hose 536 and fluid within it) connected to the movable portions such that at least one of the one or more movable portions moves into the tool channel to secure tooling therein in response to moving the intermediary (“The hose 536 runs in the longitudinal direction L of the elongate beam 509 - 1 , 509 - 2 through a cavity 535 therein. The hose 536 expands when fluid is pressurized in the pressure chamber 517 , and contracts when pressure is released. As the hose 536 expands (see FIG. 7 B), it pushes the actuating member 511 to its active position.” [0083]).
Jansen fails to disclose a housing that contains an activation system and a driven element, the activation system operably coupled to the driven element, the driven element being in communication with the one or more movable portions via an intermediary such that at least one of the one or more movable portions moves into the tool channel to secure tooling therein in response to the activation system triggering movement of the driven element and thereby moving the intermediary. While Jansen does disclose that the clamping elements move into the tool channel to secure tooling in response to the fluid entering the pressure chamber (“As such, the actuating member 211 works as a piston moveable in the pressure chamber 217 , which accordingly works as a cylinder. Accordingly, the actuating member 211 can be pushed towards its active position by introducing a fluid in the pressure chamber 217 . The pressure chamber 217 of this clamping system 204 is adapted for receiving a hydraulic liquid as pressure fluid, in order to move the actuating member 211” [0078]), Jansen, while disclosing where fluid enters the clamping system, does not disclose the sub-system that pressurizes the fluid (“In particular, the channel could itself form a conduit through which a fluid could flow to the at least one of the at least two cavities. Such a fluid could be a hydraulic or pneumatic fluid” [0023]).
Rouweler teaches a tool holder assembly (receiving structure 3) comprising electrical activation system (electric motor 41 and screw spindle 42) and a driving system (safety member 4), the electrical activation system operably coupled to the driving system (“tool is furthermore provided with an electric motor 41 , which drives a screw spindle 42 , which screw spindle 42 connects to the safety member 4. By driving the motor 41 the safety member 4 can be moved between the tool locking position and the tool releasing position” [0045]) in order to clamp a tool (Fig. 8).
Cengel teaches Pascal’s law, the notion that “pressure applied to a confined fluid increases the pressure throughout by the same amount” (Pg. 70), which can be practically applied by connecting two plates via a fluid intermediary in order to transfer force from one plate to the other (Fig. 3-10 on Pg. 71 shows a force being applied to plate 1 in order move plate 2).
Jansen discloses a structure that at least one of the one or more movable portions moves into the tool channel to secure tooling therein based on whether the fluid in the pressure chamber is in a low pressure state (shown in Fig. 7c) or in a high pressure state (shown in Fig. 7b), but does not disclose a mechanism that applies a high or low pressure state to the fluid. Rouweler teaches a motor and threaded spindle (screw spindle 42) that applies a force to a plate (safety member 4) in order to move said plate. Cengel teaches connecting two plates via a fluid intermediary in order to transfer force from one plate to the other. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jansen by placing the electrical activation system and driving system as taught by Rouweler in the channel of Jansen such that the driving system of Rouweler can apply a force to the actuating member of Jansen through the hydraulic intermediary (hose 536, pressure chamber 517 and “fluid” [00832]) as taught by Cengel in order to apply a force to the actuating member by applies a force to the clamping element in order to secure a tool.
Re Claim 30, Jansen discloses a tool holder assembly (clamping system 504) comprising:
a stationary portion (see Fig. 3c, illustrated below) that partially defines a tool channel (receiving space 510);
one or more movable portions (clamping element 512) situated opposite the stationary portion (Fig. 3c);
Jansen discloses a driving system (hose 536 and fluid within it), the driving system being hydraulic or pneumatic
Jansen fails to disclose an activation system, the activation system operably coupled to the driving system, the driving system being in communication with the one or more movable portions, such that at least one of the one or more movable portions moves into the tool channel to secure tooling therein in response to the electrical activation system triggering the driving system. While Jansen does disclose that the clamping elements move into the tool channel to secure tooling in response to the fluid entering the pressure chamber (“As such, the actuating member 211 works as a piston moveable in the pressure chamber 217 , which accordingly works as a cylinder. Accordingly, the actuating member 211 can be pushed towards its active position by introducing a fluid in the pressure chamber 217 . The pressure chamber 217 of this clamping system 204 is adapted for receiving a hydraulic liquid as pressure fluid, in order to move the actuating member 211” [0078]), Jansen, while disclosing where fluid enters the clamping system, does not disclose the sub-system that pressurizes the fluid (“In particular, the channel could itself form a conduit through which a fluid could flow to the at least one of the at least two cavities. Such a fluid could be a hydraulic or pneumatic fluid” [0023]).
Rouweler teaches a tool holder assembly (receiving structure 3) comprising electrical activation system (safety member 4, electric motor 41 and screw spindle 42).
Cengel teaches Pascal’s law, the notion that “pressure applied to a confined fluid increases the pressure throughout by the same amount” (Pg. 70), which can be practically applied by connecting two plates via a fluid intermediary in order to transfer force from one plate to the other (Fig. 3-10 on Pg. 71 shows a force being applied to plate 1 in order move plate 2).
Jansen discloses a structure that at least one of the one or more movable portions moves into the tool channel to secure tooling therein based on whether the fluid in the pressure chamber is in a low pressure state (shown in Fig. 7c) or in a high pressure state (shown in Fig. 7b), but does not disclose a mechanism that applies a high or low pressure state to the fluid. Rouweler teaches a motor and threaded spindle (screw spindle 42) that applies a force to a plate (safety member 4) in order to move said plate. Cengel teaches connecting two plates via a fluid intermediary in order to transfer force from one plate to the other. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jansen by operably connecting the electrical activation system as taught by Rouweler with the driving system as tauight by Jansen in the channel of Jansen (“The channel may be used to supply the cavities or components therein with appropriate in- and/or output, for instance by running conduits and/or wiring through the channel. In particular, the channel could itself form a conduit through which a fluid could flow to the at least one of the at least two cavities. Such a fluid could be a hydraulic or pneumatic fluid” [0022]) such that the activation system of Rouweler can apply a force to the actuating member of Jansen through the driving system (hose 536, pressure chamber 517 and “fluid” [0083]) as taught by Cengel in order to apply a force to the actuating member by applies a force to the clamping element in order to secure a tool.
Re Claim 31, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 30 (see rejection of claim 30) and Jansen further discloses that the tool holder assembly comprises a housing (beam 509), and an entirety of the driving system is internal to the housing (beam 509, after incorporation into Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, the driving system is internal to the beam 509).
Re Claim 32, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 30 (see rejection of claim 30) wherein the activation system is an electrical activation system (activation system of Rouweler is an electrical activation system because it has a motor) and the driving system comprises a fluid (“fluid” [0083]).
Re Claim 33, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 32 (see rejection of claim 32) wherein the electrical activation system comprises a motor (Rouweler, motor 41) and a shaft (Rouweler, screw spindle 42), the shaft is configured to rotate in response to operating the motor (Rouweler, “tool is furthermore provided with an electric motor 41 , which drives a screw spindle 42 , which screw spindle 42 connects to the safety member 4. By driving the motor 41 the safety member 4 can be moved between the tool locking position and the tool releasing position” [0045]), and the fluid of the driving system is hydraulic fluid (Jansen, “hydraulic fluid” [0079]).
Re Claim 34, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 33 (see rejection of claim 33) wherein the tool holder assembly comprises a housing (beam 509), the motor and the shaft both contained within the housing (after incorporation into Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, the activation system is internal to the housing in channel 233).
Re Claim 35, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 30 (see rejection of claim 30) wherein the driving system comprises a fluid (“The hose 536 expands when fluid is pressurized in the pressure chamber 517 , and contracts when pressure is released”) as well as a piston or a pump (Jansen, the interface of the hose 536 and actuating member 511 is a piston because the actuating member 511 is a plate within a tube that is moved by a liquid, fluid within hose 536).
Re Claim 36, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 30 (see rejection of claim 30) wherein the driving system includes a pocket (channel 233) and at least one channel (channel 229) in fluid communication with the pocket (Figs. 4a and 4b).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of LeFavour et al. (US2020/0036150), hereinafter LeFavour.
Re Claim 7, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel discloses the assembly of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), and further discloses that the driving system comprising a driven element (safety member 4), the shaft (screw spindle 42) comprising an output shaft (screw spindle 42), the output shaft when moved causing movement of the driven element (“tool is furthermore provided with an electric motor 41 , which drives a screw spindle 42 , which screw spindle 42 connects to the safety member 4. By driving the motor 41 the safety member 4 can be moved between the tool locking position and the tool releasing position” [0045]) and thereby pressuring fluid so as to drive said movement of at least one of the one or more movable portions (when the safety member is moved into the beam 509, the volume for the liquid is compressed, pressurizing the hydraulic fluid. This causes the hydraulic fluid to push on the actuating member of Jansen, which moves down, restoring the fluid to its original pressure. The downward movement of the actuating member moves the clamping movement into a tool securing position.)
Jensen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, fails to disclose that the electrical activation system further comprises a gearbox connected to the motor and from which the shaft extends.
LeFavour teaches an electrical activation system with a motor (motor 62) directly coupled (“A shaft of the motor 62 is connected to a gear reduction assembly or gearbox 64” [0027]) to a gearbox (gearbox 64) which drives (“In the exemplary embodiment shown, the drive arm 72 and wedge support 74 configuration form a ball screw that translates rotational motion of the drive arm 72, via the gearbox 64, to linear motion of the wedge support 74. More specifically, the drive arm 72, in this exemplary embodiment, is a threaded shaft that is received within a bore 75 having ball bearings within the wedge support 74 that act as a nut. As the drive arm 72 rotates via the gearbox 64, the wedge support 74 moves linearly in the direction along arrow “A” which in this exemplary embodiment is toward and away from the gearbox 64. Thus, the wedge support 74 acts as the nut while the threaded shaft 72 acts as the screw in the ball screw configuration.” [0029]) an output shaft (drive arm 72) to move a plate (wedge support 74). LeFavour uses the gearbox in order to reduce the speed of shaft rotation (“The gear reduction assembly 64 is used to reduce or translate the high-speed rotation of the shaft of the motor 62 by a predefined percentage” [0027]).
Jensen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses an electrical activation system upon which the claimed invention improves upon by adding a gearbox. LeFavour discloses a comparable electrical activation system that also moves a plate via a threaded shaft driven by a motor, but LeFavour connects the motor and shaft via a gearbox. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jensen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, by adding a gearbox as taught by LeFavour and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the result of controlling the speed at which the shaft rotates to be predictable.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel and LeFavour as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of “Multi-Start Thread Reference Guide”, https://www.harveyperformance.com/in-the-loupe/multi-start-thread-guide/ with WayBack Machine Publication date of June 15th, 2017 having the link: https://web.archive.org/web/20170615162800/https://www.harveyperformance.com/in-the-loupe/multi-start-thread-guide/ , hereinafter “Multi-Start”.
Re Claim 8, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel and LeFavour, disclose the assembly of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), wherein the output shaft (screw spindle 42) has outer threading (screw spindles have outer threading), the threading configured to convert rotation of the output shaft into movement of the driven element in a linear direction (“tool is furthermore provided with an electric motor 41 , which drives a screw spindle 42 , which screw spindle 42 connects to the safety member 4. By driving the motor 41 the safety member 4 can be moved between the tool locking position and the tool releasing position” [0045]).
Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel and LeFavour, does not disclose that the outer-threading is multi-start threading.
Multi-Start teaches that multi-start threading has a longer lead distance (“A double start thread will have a lead distance double that of a single start thread of the same pitch, a triple start thread will have a lead distance three times longer than a single start thread of the same pitch, and so on”). As lead distance is distance a nut will move with one revolution of the lead screw, a threading with a longer lead distance will transport faster.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel and LeFavour, to incorporate the multi-start threadings as taught by Multi-Start in order to move the safety member along the spindle quicker and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 14 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel as applied to claim 13 or 26 above, and further in view of Dan (CN 110014063).
Re Claim 14, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above), but fails to disclose that wherein the pump component is gearing, the gearing configured to rotate in response to said movement of the shaft of the electrical activation system.
Dan teaches a hydraulic drive system (“A hydraulic drive member 17 for driving the upper mold 16 for punching, the hydraulic drive member 17 being coupled to a hydraulic drive system and a numerical control system to provide a required pressing force and stroke” Pg. 3, Lines 29-31) where the pressure of the hydraulic fluid is controlled (“The numerical control system controls the hydraulic driving system to provide corresponding hydraulic support pressure for each upper connecting column” Pg. 3, Lines 48-49, wherein the hydraulic driving system comprises “a fuel tank 101, a filter 102, a drive valve block and a pressure maintaining valve set, the drive valve group being driven by a gear pump 103 and the drive motor 104” Pg. 3, Lines 59-60) by a gear pump (gear pump 103) connected (Fig. 3) to a motor (drive motor 104)
Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, disclose one method for controlling the pressure of hydraulic fluid: compressing the fluid with a moving plate. Dan teaches a different method of controlling the pressure: using a gear pump that is rotated by a motor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the safety member of Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, for the gear pump taught by Dan and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of this combination as predictable because both control the pressure of hydraulic fluid
Re Claim 27, Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, discloses the assembly of claim 26 (see rejection of claim 26 above) but fails to disclose that wherein the pump component is gearing, the gearing configured to rotate in response to said movement of the shaft of the electrical activation system.
Dan teaches a hydraulic drive system (“A hydraulic drive member 17 for driving the upper mold 16 for punching, the hydraulic drive member 17 being coupled to a hydraulic drive system and a numerical control system to provide a required pressing force and stroke” Pg. 3, Lines 29-31) where the pressure of the hydraulic fluid is controlled (“The numerical control system controls the hydraulic driving system to provide corresponding hydraulic support pressure for each upper connecting column” Pg. 3, Lines 48-49, wherein the hydraulic driving system comprises “a fuel tank 101, a filter 102, a drive valve block and a pressure maintaining valve set, the drive valve group being driven by a gear pump 103 and the drive motor 104” Pg. 3, Lines 59-60) by a gear pump (gear pump 103) connected (Fig. 3) to a motor (drive motor 104)
Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, disclose one method for controlling the pressure of hydraulic fluid: compressing the fluid with a moving plate. Dan teaches a different method of controlling the pressure: using a gear pump that is rotated by a motor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the safety member of Jansen, in view of Rouweler and Cengel, for the gear pump taught by Dan and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of this combination as predictable because both control the pressure of hydraulic fluid
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schwartz et al. (US2023/0398649) teaches the electrical activation system
Schwartz et al. (US2024/0173760) teaches the electrical activation system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D DICKSTEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at 5712701477. 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.
/W.D.D./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights