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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/6/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Lines 13-17 of claim 1 recite therein, “wherein the exchangeable holder includes a first portion thereof, said first portion of the exchangeable holder overlapping the portion of the collet that projects beyond the first end face of main body, and a second end portion thereof, said second portion of the exchangeable holder excluding the collet.” First, this limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because there is no axis or frame of reference for determining as to what is meant by, “said first portion of the exchangeable holder overlapping the portion of the collet that projects beyond the first end face of main body.” This limitation is further viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to what is meant by the “second portion of the exchangeable holder excluding the collet.” Noting Applicant previously claimed overlapping as it pertains to said first portion of the exchangeable holder and “the portion” of the collet, does “the second portion of the exchangeable holder excluding the collet” mean, for example, that said second end portion of said exchangeable holder and “the portion” of the collet do not overlap, for example? Or, does “the second portion of the exchangeable holder excluding the collet” mean, for example, that said second end portion of said exchangeable holder does not overlap with any part of the collet whatsoever? In order to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, Examiner suggests the following amendment: “wherein the exchangeable holder includes a first portion thereof, said first portion of the exchangeable holder overlapping, with respect to a direction extending orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of the exchangeable holder, the portion of the collet that projects beyond the first end face of main body, and a second end portion thereof, said second portion of the exchangeable holder having an inner diameter that is sized to enable the ram to extend therethrough but precludes any part of from extending therethrough.”
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baldeck (WIPO Publication No. WO 2011059945 A1).
Please be advised that Baldeck was cited on the PTO-892 mailed in 10/1/2025.
Claim 1: Figure 1 of Baldeck shows a ram clamping system comprising a rotationally symmetrical main body (8), which has an opening that extends through the rotationally symmetrical main body (8) along its axis of symmetry. It is in this particular opening that a drawbar (22) extends.
Please be advised that the ram clamping system further comprises a collet (12), which collet (12) is configured to be clamped by the drawbar (22). Please note that a proximal end of the collet (12) is directly engaged to a distal end of the rotationally symmetrical main body (8). This can be seen in Figure 1 of Baldeck. Next, be advised that when the drawbar (22) is pulled back, a corresponding ram (14) is also pulled back. With the ram (14) being pulled back by means of motion of the drawbar (22), the collet (12) radially expands into a clamping position. Thus, it is in at least this way, that the collet (12) is clamped by means of the drawbar (22).
Next, the collet (12) is configured to be clamped by the drawbar (22) “for fixing [the] ram [14] to the collet [12].” Please be advised that the collet (12) receives in an interior opening thereof, the ram (14). When the ram (14) is pulled back by means of motion of the drawbar (22), an exterior tapered surface (16) (shown in Figure 1) of the ram (14) is pulled back and slides along a complementary tapered surface (18) (also shown in Figure 1) of the collet (12). With this sliding/pulling back, a larger diameter portion of the tapered surface (16) of the ram (14) comes to interface with a smaller diameter portion of the complementary tapered surface (18) of the collet (12). By interfacing with the smaller diameter portion of the complementary tapered surface (18) of the collet (12), the ram (14) is fixed. Thus, the collet (12), which is configured to be clamped by the drawbar (22), is for fixing the ram (14) to the collet (12). Please be advised that the ram (14) is “associated with the ram clamping system” because it is a component of said ram clamping system of Baldeck.
In addition to the collet (12) and the ram (14), the ram clamping system further comprises a holder (10). As can be determined by at least the respective hatch lines of each of the ram (14), collet (12), and holder (10), said ram (14), collet (12), and holder (10) are each formed as individual, different elements. Should the need arise, the holder (10) is able to be disconnected from the ram (14) and collet (12), and the holder (10) is subsequently able to be replaced with a different holder (10), for example. Thus, in at least this way, the holder (10) of the ram clamping system is “exchangeable” and is thus “an exchangeable holder [10].”
Next, as can be seen in Figure 1, “a portion” of the collet (12) projects in a direction of extension of the drawbar (22) beyond a first end face (the distal end) of the main body (8), on which first end face the exchangeable holder (10) is arranged via the intervening collet (12).
As to the exchangeable holder (10), it (10) projects in the direction of extension of the drawbar (22) beyond the first end face of the main body (8), where the exchangeable holder (10) includes a first portion and a second portion. Be advised that the first portion of the holder (10) overlaps (in a vertical direction from the perspective of Figure 1) the portion of the collet (12) that projects beyond the first end face of the main body (8).
PNG
media_image1.png
593
924
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Be advised that Figure 1 of Baldeck has been annotated and provided above. As can be seen therein, there are three vertical dashed lines. With respect to the left-to-right/right-to left direction in annotated Figure 1, the first portion of the holder (10) extends between the leftmost dashed line and the center dashed line, whereas the second portion of the holder (10) extends between the center dashed line and the rightmost dashed line. Also, as can be seen above, with respect to the left-to-right/right-to left direction in annotated Figure 1, a portion of the collet (12) that projects in the direction of extension of the drawbar (22) beyond the first end face of the main body (8) extends between the leftmost dashed line and the center dashed line. (On a side note, be advised that it is a different segment of the collet (12), i.e. different from the claimed “a portion of the collect”, that extends between the center dashed line and the rightmost dashed line with respect to the left-to-right/right-to left direction in annotated Figure 1).
Regarding the second portion of the exchangeable holder (10), said second portion “excluding the collet [12]” (as is best understood). This is because the second portion of the exchangeable holder (10) excludes the entirety of the portion of the collet (12) that projects beyond the first end face of the main body (8) from extending into an interior space thereof. In other words, the designated “portion of the collet [12]” is a large diameter portion of the collet (12) (please see above annotated figure), and the second portion of the exchangeable holder (10) is sized to exclude said large diameter portion of the collet (12) from entirely extending into the interior space thereof. Thus, in at least this way, said second portion is “excluding the collet [12].”
Next, Examiner has once again annotated Figure 1 of Baldeck (please see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
593
986
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As can be seen above, the exchangeable holder (10) comprises an interior space, which is located within the second portion of said exchangeable holder (10). Please be advised that this interior space is proximate an end face of the portion of the collet (12) that projects beyond the first end face of the main body (8).
Lastly, the ram (14) of Baldeck extends through at least a length portion of the portion of the collet (12) that projects in the direction of extension of the drawbar (22) beyond the first end face of the main body (8), through the interior space, and through the second portion of the exchangeable holder (10) that excludes the collet (12) (as is best understood).
Claim 2: As can be seen below in annotated Figure 1, clamping arms of the collet (12) have, located axially behind corresponding clamping jaws of said collet (12), a recess in which an ejector for the ram (14) is accommodated.
PNG
media_image3.png
513
920
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 3: As can be seen below in annotated Figure 1, the ram clamping system via the collet (12) thereof has a collet receptacle, the collet receptacle being integral to the collet (12). As can be seen below, the collet receptacle projects beyond the end face of the main body (8), on which end face the exchangeable holder (10) is arranged (via intermediate structure), in the (linear) direction of extension of the drawbar (22). Also, the collet receptacle is shown below as extending in the interior space of said exchangeable holder (10).
PNG
media_image4.png
526
920
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 4: As can be seen above in annotated Figure 2, (interior) walls of the collet receptacle have slots.
Claim 6: As can be seen below in annotated Figure 1 of Baldeck, the drawbar (22) has at its end opposite the collet (12), a pull stud or drawbar adapter for connection to a spindle clamping system (20) of a spindle (6) of a machine tool.
PNG
media_image5.png
654
1062
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 7: Examiner notes that claim 7 is directed to a product (i.e. a ram clamping system) constructed by a process in which the ram is inserted in a direction of insertion of the ram into the collet (please see lines 4-5 of claim 7). Therefore, the limitation concerning the insertion of the ram into the collet in “a direction of insertion of the ram” is considered by Examiner to be a product-by-process limitation. Please note that product-by-process limitations are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). See MPEP section 2113.
Noting the above, the collet (12) is releasably connected to the drawbar (22) of Baldeck. When, for example, a proximal end of the ram (14) is unscrewed from threads (15) of a floating nut (24), removal of the ram (14) provides for disassembly in which, for example, the collet (12) is enabled to be removed from the main body (8) after the connection to the drawbar (22) has been released. More specifically, from the perspective of Figure 1 of Baldeck, the collet (12) is able to be removed from left-to-right from the main body (8), which is a direction opposite to a direction of insertion of the ram (14) (right-to-left) into the collet (12) after the connection to the drawbar (22) has been released.
Claim 8: The collet (12) is connected to the drawbar (22) via a connection, the connection being a screw connection between a proximal end of the ram (14) and the threads (15) of the floating nut (24) of the drawbar (22). Claim 8 is satisfied, since when the proximal end of the ram (14) engages the threads (15) of the floating nut (24) of the drawbar (22), the collet (12) is connected to the drawbar (22) via at least the intervening ram (14).
Claim 10: As broadly claimed, the collet (12) is releasably connected to the drawbar (22). When, for example, a proximal end of the ram (14) is unscrewed from threads (15) of a floating nut (24), removal of the ram (14) provides for disassembly in which, for example, the collet (12) can be removed from the main body (8). Noting this, on their end face facing away from the drawbar (22), the clamping jaws of the collet (12) have radially disposed openings (which are located proximate the tapered surfaces (16), see Figure 1) which an operator, for example, can use for grasping of the collet (12) for pulling said collet (12) out of the main body (8).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldeck (WIPO Pub. No. WO 2011059945 A1) in view of Soroka et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2007/0063406 A1).
Please be advised that Soroka et al. was cited on the PTO-892 mailed in 10/1/2025.
Claim 9: The collet (12) is connected to the drawbar (22) via a connection, the connection being a screw connection between a proximal end of the ram (14) and the floating nut (24) of the drawbar (22). Please note that the proximal end of the ram (14) is screwed into the threads (15) of the floating nut (24). Due to the screw connection, Baldeck does not provide disclosure on the connection being “a bayonet connection.”
Soroka et al. though, discloses replacing a threading locking mechanism for connection to a drawbar (30) with a bayonet-style locking mechanism [paragraph 0070].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the bayonet-style locking mechanism of Soroka et al. for the screw connection of Baldeck, as this is a substitution of one know means for releasably connecting an element to a drawbar for another, in order to obtain the predictable result of the proximal end of the ram (14) being releasably connected the drawbar (22) of Baldeck via the bayonet-style locking mechanism of Soroka et al. In making this substitution, when the proximal end of the ram (14) engages the drawbar (22) via the bayonet-style locking mechanism of Soroka et al., the collet (12) is connected to the drawbar (22) via at least the intervening ram (14). As such, claim 9 is satisfied.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, with respect to claim 1 and Baldeck, Applicant argues the following:
Applicant submits that the claimed subject matter is vastly different from the teachings of the cited art. In the present disclosure, a workpiece (1) is pulled axially against a holder (180) by a ram (190). In the present subject matter, the collet (120) grips the ram (190) and pulls the ram (190) such that a ram head (191) of the ram (190) compresses the workpiece (1) against the distal end of the holder (180). The collet (120) does not come in direct contact with the workpiece (1) (in Baldeck it does).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “In the present disclosure, a workpiece (1) is pulled axially against a holder (180) by a ram (190). In the present subject matter, the collet (120) grips the ram (190) and pulls the ram (190) such that a ram head (191) of the ram (190) compresses the workpiece (1) against the distal end of the holder (180). The collet (120) does not come in direct contact with the workpiece (1)”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Please be advised that at no point within claim 1 is a workpiece or a ram head ever recited. Thus, unlike what is argued above, Applicant does not set forth in claim 1, “a workpiece is pulled axially against a holder by a ram” and further does not set forth in claim 1, “the collet grips the ram and pulls the ram such that a ram head of the ram compresses the workpiece against the distal end of the holder.” Likewise, claim 1 never sets forth any claim limitation in which it is established that the claimed collet “does not come in direct contact with the workpiece.”
Next, with respect to claim 1 and Baldeck, Applicant argues the following:
As such, claim 1 is herein amended to recite, inter alia, that:
the exchangeable holder (180) includes a first portion thereof, said first portion of the exchangeable holder (180) overlapping the portion of the collet (120) that projects beyond the first end face of the main body (110), and a second portion thereof, said second portion of the exchangeable holder (180) excluding the collet (120) (emphasis added).
See annotated FIG. 3 of the present application below, clarifying the claim language above.
PNG
media_image6.png
468
664
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As shown above, the "second portion of the exchangeable holder (180) exclude[es] the collet (120)," as recited in amended claim 1.
Baldeck fails to teach/suggest that the "second portion of the exchangeable holder (180) exclude[es] the collet (120)," as recited in amended claim 1.
This is because Baldeck teaches a conventional clamping system in which no portion of the alleged holder 10 excludes collet 12. Stated otherwise, the entire length of alleged holder 10 of Baldeck extends along the length of ram 12 thereof. See FIG. 1 of Baldeck below.
PNG
media_image7.png
338
722
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive. This is because “said second portion of the exchangeable holder excluding the collet” (as is best understood in view of the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), is indeed read on by Baldeck. This will now be explained by Examiner.
First, as can be seen in annotated Figure 1 (next page), “a portion” of the collet (12) projects in a direction of extension of the drawbar (22) beyond a first end face (the distal end) of the main body (8), on which first end face the exchangeable holder (10) is arranged via the intervening collet (12).
As to the exchangeable holder (10), it (10) projects in the direction of extension of the drawbar (22) beyond the first end face of the main body (8), where the exchangeable holder (10) includes a first portion and a second portion. Be advised that the first portion of the holder (10) overlaps (in a vertical direction from the perspective of Figure 1) the portion of the collet (12) that projects beyond the first end face of the main body (8). This can be seen below.
PNG
media_image2.png
593
986
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Next, as can be seen above in annotated Figure 1, there are three vertical dashed lines. With respect to the left-to-right/right-to left direction in annotated Figure 1, the first portion of the holder (10) extends between the leftmost dashed line and the center dashed line, whereas the second portion of the holder (10) extends between the center dashed line and the rightmost dashed line. Also, as can be seen above, with respect to the left-to-right/right-to left direction in annotated Figure 1, a portion of the collet (12) that projects in the direction of extension of the drawbar (22) beyond the first end face of the main body (8) extends between the leftmost dashed line and the center dashed line. (On a side note, be advised that it is a different segment of the collet (12), i.e. different from the claimed “a portion of the collect”, that extends between the center dashed line and the rightmost dashed line with respect to the left-to-right/right-to left direction in annotated Figure 1).
Regarding the second portion of the exchangeable holder (10), said second portion “excluding the collet [12]” (as is best understood). This is because the second portion of the exchangeable holder (10) excludes the entirety of the portion of the collet (12) that projects beyond the first end face of the main body (8) from extending into an interior space thereof. In other words, the designated “portion of the collet [12]” is a large diameter portion of the collet (12) (please see above annotated figure), and the second portion of the exchangeable holder (10) is sized to exclude said large diameter portion of the collet (12) from entirely extending into the interior space thereof. Thus, in at least this way, said second portion is “excluding the collet [12].”
For the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s argument is deemed not persuasive.
Lastly, with respect to claim 1 and Baldeck, Applicant argues the following:
Applicant submits that Baldeck's device operates based on a different principle, which requires locking workpiece 4 thereof in place by radially expanding the tapered end surface 16 of collet 12 against the workpiece 4, which is achieved by pulling inwardly the alleged ram 14.
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but is not persuasive. Although there may be differences between Baldeck and Applicant’s disclosed invention, it is once again noted that Applicant is submitting arguments with respect to an unclaimed workpiece. It is reiterated that Applicant never claims the workpiece in claim 1 or in any other claim for that matter. Thus, while perhaps there are differences, for example, in how the workpiece (4) of Baldeck and the workpiece (1) of Applicant’s disclosed invention are locked/clamped, when it comes to what is actually claimed by Applicant, Applicant never actually sets forth the workpiece.
Thus, arguments directed to how the workpiece (4) of Baldeck is locked by means of a radially expanding tapered end surface (16) are moot, because there aren’t any claim limitations set forth in claim 1 as it pertains to how the (unclaimed) workpiece is clamped and which elements the (unclaimed) workpiece interfaces with when clamped. For the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s argument is deemed not persuasive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Morawski (U.S. Patent No. 3,909,021 A) shows in Figure 1 ram clamping system comprising a workpiece holder (50), a collet (34), and a ram (24) having a projecting boss (28). Please be advised the workpiece holder (50), which is exchangeable by means of loosening of screws (52), for example, receives therein the projecting boss (28) and the ram (24). It is noted that the workpiece holder (50) has a first portion (proximal tapered end) and a second portion (distal small diameter end). Noting this, the ram (24) extends through at least a length portion of a portion of the collet (34) beyond a first end face of a main body (10), through an interior space of the collet (34), and through the second portion of the workpiece holder (50). Be advised that second portion of the workpiece holder (50) is excluding the collet (34) in that the second portion is excluding a base plate portion (36) of the collet (34) from extending therein, for example.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Vitale whose telephone number is (571)270-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM- 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/MICHAEL VITALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722
