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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/07/2026 has been fully considered and made of record.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 and dependent claims 2-11 and 13-14, reference numerals are recited to further define the claim elements. However, claim 1 recites at least two to four radial elevations while only reciting three reference numerals (1a-1c). The applicant is suggested to amend the claims by deleting all the reference numerals or changing the limitation of “at least two, and/or a maximum of four,” limitation in line 8 to - - at least two, and/or a maximum of three, - - to not only overcome the claim objections but to also overcome the Drawing objection as outlined in the previous Office action mailed 01/09/2026.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1, the newly amended limitation of “wherein the radial elevations (1a-1c) are arranged uniformly around a circumference of the clamping ring (100)” in lines 9-11 is considered as New Matter with no support in the originally filed disclosure. The specification as originally filed discloses that “A clamping ring with a plurality of, in particular three, radial elevations advantageously permits a clamping force which is distributed uniformly over the circumference of the clamping ring” as in paragraph [0010], emphasis added). However, this is different than the claimed limitation of elevations are arranged uniformly around a circumference of the clamping ring.
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 6 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.
Claim 1, as amended, requires that all of the radial elevations are arranged uniformly around a circumference of the clamping ring which implies that uniform arrangements of the radial elevations are relative to a radial axis of the clamping ring which would result in the radial elevations to be symmetric relative the radial axis. However, amended claim 6, directly dependent on claim 1, which requires to include all the limitations of the parent claim, requires at least one of the radial elevations is not symmetrical relative to the radial axis which is confusing and unclear if that is correct or not.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 as best understood, 7, 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chou (US 5,588,336).
As applied to claims 1 and 9, Chou teaches an assembly and a connection including the assembly (embodiment in Figs. 1-3) comprising a sleeve (20), and a clamping ring (14) for clamping the sleeve (20) on a shaft (10), wherein the clamping ring (14) is positioned on the sleeve (20) and comprises a receiving hole (see Annotated Fig. 1) for a tensioning screw (see Annotated Fig. 1 below), a radial clamping gap (see Annotated Fig. 1 below) and at least two, and/or a maximum of four radial elevations (see Annotated Fig. 1 below), wherein the radial elevations are arranged uniformly around a circumference of the clamping ring (see Annotated Figure 1 below showing the uniform arrangement of the two radial elevation with equally spaced angular position of zero degrees between the two elevations), wherein the receiving hole for the tensioning screw and the clamping gap are arranged in one of the radial elevations (receiving hole and clamping gap is arranged in each pair of radial elevations as shown in Annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
512
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As applied to claim 2, Chou teaches the invention cited including having a uniform wall thickness in a radial direction which means the minimum wall thickness is 0% of the maximum wall thickness. Therefore, Chou teaches the claimed range of wherein a minimum wall thickness of the clamping ring in the radial direction is at most 50% of a maximum wall thickness of the clamping ring in the radial direction (0% is less than 50%).
As applied to claim 3, Chou teaches the invention cited including wherein an axis of the receiving hole of the tensioning screw is arranged closer to an external diameter of the clamping ring than to an internal diameter of the clamping ring (see Annotated Fig. 1 above).
As applied to claim 6, as best understood, Chou teaches the invention cited including wherein At least one of the radial elevations is not symmetrical relative to a radial axis.(see Annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
451
748
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As applied to claim 7, Chou teaches the invention cited including wherein at least one of the radial elevations has a surface of the outer contour which is parallel to an axis of the clamping gap (see Annotated Fig. 3 above).
As applied to claim 14, Chou teaches the invention cited including wherein the internal diameter of the clamping ring (14) in an unmounted state is smaller than an external diameter of the sleeve (20, col. 2, lines 33-35).
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levalley (US 762,827).
As applied to claims 1 and 9, Levalley teaches an assembly and a connection including the assembly (embodiment in Figs. 5-7) comprising a sleeve (B/B’), and a clamping ring (combination F/G) for clamping the sleeve (B) on a shaft (A), wherein the clamping ring (F/G) is positioned on the sleeve (B, Fig. 7) and comprises a receiving hole (shown but not labeled) for a tensioning screw (H), a radial clamping gap (gap between F & G at fastener H) and at least two, and/or a maximum of four radial elevations (Fig. 7 shows a pair of radial elevations), wherein the radial elevations are arranged uniformly around a circumference of the clamping ring (see Figure 1 showing the uniform arrangement of the two radial elevation with 180 degrees apart), wherein the receiving hole for the tensioning screw and the clamping gap are arranged in one of the radial elevations (receiving hole and clamping gap is arranged in each pair of radial elevations as shown in Fig. 7, page 2, left column, lines 1-45).
As applied to claim 10, Levalley teaches the invention cited including wherein the sleeve (B’) comprises at least 4 sleeve bores (c/c’/d) through a lateral surface (outer surface) of the sleeve (B’, Figs. 5-7).
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krautloher (US 6,328,269).
As applied to claim 1, Krautloher teaches an assembly and a connection including the assembly (embodiment in Figs. 1-3) comprising a sleeve (22), and a clamping ring (26/28) for clamping the sleeve (22) on a shaft (40), wherein the clamping ring (28) is positioned on the sleeve (22, Fig. 7) and comprises a receiving hole (shown but not labeled) for a tensioning screw (screw at clamp mechanism 32), a radial clamping gap (30) and at least two, and/or a maximum of four radial elevations (Fig. 3 shows a pair of radial elevations 32/34), wherein the radial elevations are arranged uniformly around a circumference of the clamping ring (see Figure 3 showing the uniform arrangement of the two radial elevation with 180 degrees apart), wherein the receiving hole for the tensioning screw and the clamping gap are arranged in one of the radial elevations (receiving hole and clamping gap 30 is arranged in radial elevation 32 as shown in Fig. 3, col. 4, lines 12-29).
As applied to claim 4, Krautloher teaches the invention cited including wherein an axial width of the clamping ring (Fig. 3) is not greater than 50% of the internal diameter of the clamping ring (internal diameter of 28, Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bohmel et al. (DE102007043292A1, hereinafter “Bohmel”).
As applied to claims 1 and 9, Bohmel teaches an assembly and a connection including the assembly (clamp assembly 7, Figs. 1-3) comprising a sleeve (20), and a clamping ring (10 made of 8 and 9) for clamping the sleeve (20) on a shaft (pipe not shown, paragraph [0002]), wherein the clamping ring (10) is positioned on the sleeve (20) and comprises a receiving hole (holes in flanges 11/12 and 13 and slot 21 in flange 14, Fig. 3) for a tensioning screw (clamping screw 1, Figs. 1-6), a radial clamping gap (gap between flanges 11/12 and flanges 13/14, Figs. 3-6) and at least two, and/or a maximum of four radial elevations (see elevations of flanges 11, 12, 13, 14, Fig. 3), wherein the radial elevations are arranged uniformly around a circumference of the clamping ring (Fig. 3 shows the flanges 11/12 are 180 degrees spaced from one another on the circumference of the clamping ring, paragraph [0003]), wherein the receiving hole for the tensioning screw and the clamping gap are arranged in one of the radial elevations (receiving hole and clamping gap is arranged in each pair of radial elevations as shown in Fig. 3, abstract).
As applied to claim 2, Bohmel teaches the invention cited including the ring (10) having a uniform wall thickness in a radial direction which means the minimum wall thickness is 0% of the maximum wall thickness. Therefore, Bohmel teaches the claimed range of wherein a minimum wall thickness of the clamping ring in a radial direction is at most 50% of a maximum wall thickness of the clamping ring in the radial direction (0% is less than 50%).
As applied to claim 4, Bohmel teaches the invention cited including wherein an axial width of the clamping ring (Fig. 3) is not greater than 50% of the internal diameter of the clamping ring (Fig. 3).
As applied to claim 7, Bohmel teaches the invention cited including wherein at least one of the radial elevations has a surface of the outer contour which is parallel to an axis of the clamping gap (see outer surface 13, Fig. 6).
As applied to claim 10, Bohmel teaches the invention cited including wherein the sleeve (20) comprises at least 4 sleeve bores (bores enclosing clamp straps 8 and 9 of ring 10, Fig. 3) through a lateral surface (outer end surfaces) of the sleeve (20).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krautloher (US 6,328,269).in view of Askestad (US 10,851,923).
As applied to claim 5, Krautloher teaches the invention cited including the clamping ring having an inner face with an internal diameter which is in contact with the external surface of the sleeve but does not explicitly teach wherein the inner face of the clamping ring on the internal diameter has an at least partially circulating bearing surface having a width in the axial direction of at most 50% of the axial width of the clamping ring.
Askestad teaches a connection assembly including an clamping ring assembly formed by fastening two ring sections (20, 23) using a plurality of fasteners (bolt 21) with the interior surface of the formed clamping ring having a circulating bearing surface (24) having a width in the axial direction of at most 50% of the axial width of the clamping ring (the width from top of 20 to bottom of 23, Fig. 3b, col. 4, lines 1-28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the inner face of the clamping ring of Krautloher with a bearing surface/liner having a width in the axial direction of at most 50% of the axial width of the clamping ring, as taught by Askestad, as an effective means of protecting the inner surface of the clamping ring from premature wear.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levalley (US 762,827) in view of Gehring et al. (US 4,715,626, hereinafter “Gehring”).
As applied to claim 8, Levalley teaches the invention cited with the assembly including a clamping ring but does not explicitly teach the clamping ring is made of sheet metal.
Gehring teaches that it is well-known in the art of clamping joints to fabricate the clamping ring (2) from sheet metal material (col. 4, lines 56-59). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to fabricate the clamping ring of Levalley from sheet metal, as taught by Gehring, considering the well-known advantages of sheet metal fabrication including versatile design and customization, high accuracy through automated processes, high strength parts and cost-effectiveness.
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levalley (US 762,827) in view of Cihlar et al. (DE 102004011361 B3, hereinafter “Cihlar”).
As applied to claims 11 and 13, Levalley teaches the invention cited including a connection with a sleeve (B’) having a series of bores/slots (c/c’) on the outer surface of the sleeve but does not teach wherein the connection comprises a securing element for securing the clamping ring against twisting and/or removal relative to the sleeve; and the securing element engages in one of the sleeve bores (as in claim 11) and that the clamping ring has a radial bore and the securing element is inserted into the radial bore in the clamping ring (as in claim 13).
Cihlar teaches a connection including an assembly (Figs.1-4, English Machine Translation, paragraphs [0001] and [0032] to [0038]) comprising a sleeve (hollow shaft or sleeve 2), and a clamping ring (3) for clamping the sleeve (2) on a shaft (not shown but discussed in paragraph [0001] as wherein the hollow shaft or the like has a slotted area into which the shaft or the like fits and engages), wherein the clamping ring (3) is positioned on the sleeve (2) and comprises a receiving hole (shown but not labeled) for a tensioning screw (5, Figs. 1-3). Cihlar further teaches that the connection comprises a securing element (8, Figs. 1, 3) provided and positioned into a radial bore in the clamping ring to exert a force between the clamping ring (3) and the sleeve (slots 7a of sleeve 2) before the clamping ring (3) is clamped by means of the tensioning screw (5) which at least makes relative movement between the clamping ring and the sleeve more difficult (paragraph [0033] and [0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a radial bore into the clamping ring and a securing element into the radial bore of the clamping connection of Levalley such that the securing element is positioned into the radial bore of the clamping ring and engages the bores/slots of the sleeve, as taught by Cihlar, as an effective means of preventing the relative movement of the clamping ring with respect to the sleeve during assembly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument regarding the drawings not showing four radial elevations is accepted. However, Applicant’s amendment to claims 1 and 6 appears to contradict one another and a drawing may be required to show how both the limitations of claim 1 and 6 can co-exist.
Applicant further argues that none of the primary art of the record teaches the newly amended limitation of “wherein the elevations are arranged uniformly, around a circumference of the clamping ring.” The examiner respectfully disagrees as this limitation appears to be a New Matter with no support in the originally filed disclosure. Applicant’s reliance on the drawing as the sole support for this amendment is not sufficient as the drawings appear to mostly depict pictorial representations of the claimed invention and not necessarily the actual definitive support for uniform arrangement of the radial elevations. In addition, the disclosure in paragraph [0010] of the originally filed specification supports that the clamping force is distributed uniformly and not the elevations are distributed uniformly and even that appears to be only directed to having three radial elevations that can result in uniform clamping force.
Therefore, the rejection all claims 1-11 and 13-14 are maintained while claims 12 and 15 are withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 05/26/2026
Prosecution Insights