DETAILED ACTION1
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of an informality. Claim 1 contains a punctuation issue that creates potential confusion. Claim 1 recites a tool switching apparatus having three elements separated by semi-colons. Specifically, the tool has a main body…; a plurality of clamping jaws…; and a flat spring. However, claim 1 also recites that the clamping jaws comprise some sub-elements, specifically two protrusions. The issue is that the two protrusion clauses are also separated by semi-colons. This creates potential confusion because when the phrase the opening; and a second protrusion is reached, the grammatical conclusion is that this is the third and final element of the original list of three elements of the whole tool. This phrase should instead use a comma to differentiate itself from the semi-colon list it is nested within. Appropriate correction is required.
REJECTIONS UNDER 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious2 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 5,433,562 to Phillips.
Claim 1 recites a tool switching apparatus. Phillips relates to such an apparatus. See Phillips col. 1, ll. 4-6. Phillips teaches a tool having a main body (14) comprising an opening (14, 86)…configured to receive a tool (10). See Phillips col. 2, ll. 1-14 and Figs. 2-3. The tool, incidentally is not a claimed element. Figures 2-3 show the opening bore (14) of Phillips defin[es] a centerline of the body. Phillips further teaches the body has a plurality of clamping jaws (78)…around the opening (12), each clamping jaw being configured to rotate around a respective pivot (82) fixedly coupled to the main body. See Phillips col. 2, ln. 62 to col. 3, ln. 47 and Figs. 2-3.
Claim 1 further recites that each clamping jaw has two protrusion[s]. One extending towards the [adjacent] opening and the other being on an opposite side relative to the pivot. Figures 2-3 show that the clamp fingers (78) have two opposing protrusions. Protrusion (98) of Phillips is denoted as the first protrusion. It is adjacent the central bore and extends into it. Protrusion (84) is on the opposite side of the pivot and is the second protrusion. Claim 1 recites that actuation exerted by the tool…allow[s] the first protrusion to move away from the centerline of the opening. Phillips teaches that moving the release rod (90) axially forward causing a cam element (96) to push the first protrusion (98) away from the centerline and unlock the tool. The system can then receive a new tool in this unlocked state.
Claim 1 also recites a flat spring fixedly coupled to the main body at one end and coupled to the second protrusion at another end. Phillips teaches a circle spring attached to the first protrusion that biases the first protrusion towards the center. See Phillips col. 3, ll. 4-12 and Figs. 2-3. But it would have been obvious as a matter of common sense that one can cause the same bias effect by using a spring attached to the other side of the lock finger (84) biased in the opposite direction. Additionally, examiner takes Official Notice that flat springs are known in the mechanical arts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Phillips to substitute a flat spring in place of the circular spring because it is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B). Such a modification would have been obvious because the sole purpose of the circular spring is to bias the finger in one rotational direction arounds its pivot point. One of ordinary skill would have known how to use a flat spring to accomplish this goal.
Claim 2 recites the clamping jaw is further configured to rotate around the pivot in a second rotational direction opposite to the first rotational direction under [[the]] a force of the flat spring to allow the first protrusion to move towards the centerline of the opening to clamp the tool. Phillips teaches a spring (88) that biases the first protrusion (98) towards the center to clamp the tool. See Phillips col. 3, ll. 4-12. Regarding claim 8, Phillips teaches the plurality of lock fingers are arrange symmetrically around the lock housing. See Phillips col. 2, ll. 62-66. This symmetry teaches that the plurality of clamping jaws are equidistantly distributed around the opening.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 3-7 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.
Claim 3 recites that when the clamping jaw moves parallel to the centerline, the second protrusion is actuated by the collar to cause the clamping jaw to rotate around the respective pivot. In Phillips the clamping jaw cannot move parallel to the centerline, it is fixed within the tool body. As such, it is not capable of being actuated by a collar in this manner. Thus, Phillips does not teach or suggest the features of claim 3 and by extension claims 4-5 and 7 that depend from claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, Phillips does not teach or suggest a ball plunger in the slot that is capable of being compressed by an outer surface…and popped up into a groove…when the ball detaches from the outer surface.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’s supervisor, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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. 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.
/MOSHE WILENSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference. All citations to “specification” are to the applicant’s published specification unless otherwise indicated. The use of the phrase “et al.” following a reference is used solely to refer to subsequent modifying references, and not to other listed inventors of the cited reference.
2 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.”
Prosecution Insights