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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/2/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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 4-5 of claim 1 recite therein, “the collet is movably engaged to the rotationally symmetrical main body.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to what is meant by the collet being “movably engaged to the rotationally symmetrical main body.” Does “engaged to” in this instance require the collet to directly connect to the rotationally symmetrical main body, or does “engaged to” in this instance require the collet to connect to the rotationally symmetrical main body in some manner even if it indirectly, i.e. by means of intervening structure?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the clamping jaws" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 movably engaged to the rotationally symmetrical main body (8) and the collet (12) is configured to be clamped by the drawbar (22). First, please be advised 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). Moreover, whilst being directly engaged to the rotationally symmetrical main body (8), when the collet (12) incurs the radial expansion, at least a portion of the collet (12) is being moved (e.g. radially expanded) with respect to the rotationally symmetrical main body (8). The collet (12) of Baldeck is therefore “movably engaged to the rotationally symmetrical main body [8].”
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, Examiner notes that claim 1 is directed to a product (i.e. a ram clamping system) constructed by a process in which the ram extends through an interior space of the exchangeable holder before entering the collet (please see lines 9-10 of claim 1) (emphasis added). Therefore, the limitation concerning the extension of the ram through an interior space of the exchangeable holder before the ram enters the collet is considered to be a product-by-process limitation (emphasis added). 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.
Regarding Baldeck, the ram (14) passes through an interior space of the exchangeable holder (10), and also enters into the collet (12). As such, this structure of Baldeck corresponds to that set forth within lines 9-10 of claim 1. Again, the patentability of a product (in this instance, the ram clamping system) does not depend on its method of production.
Having said that, in assembling the ram clamping system, for example, it is noted that within Baldeck that the ram (14) is insertable first into the interior space of the holder (10), e.g. the ram (14) of Baldeck is insertable from right-to-left (from the perspective of Figure 1) into the interior of the exchangeable holder (10). After having inserted the ram (14) in this manner, the collet (12) can be inserted from left-to-right into the interior space of the holder (10) and over the ram (14). These elements (10, 12, 14) can then be mounted to the rotationally symmetrical main body (8) of the ram clamping system for subsequent use. Thus, in this way, the ram (14) extends through the interior space of the exchangeable holder (10) before entering the collet (12).
Lastly, the collet (12) projects in a direction of extension of the drawbar (22) beyond an end face of the main body (8), on which end face the exchangeable holder (10) is arranged, and enters the interior space of the exchangeable holder (10).
Claim 2: As can be seen below in annotated Figure 2, 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_image1.png
513
920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 3: As can be seen below in version 2 of annotated Figure 2, 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 the collet receptacle), in the (linear) direction of extension of the drawbar (22) and enters the interior space of said holder (10).
PNG
media_image2.png
526
920
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 4: As can be seen above within version 2 of annotated Figure 2, (interior) walls of the collet receptacle have slots.
Claim 6: As can be seen below in version 3 of annotated Figure 2, 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_image3.png
654
1062
media_image3.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). 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) can 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, 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 1/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1 and Baldeck, Applicant argues the following:
The present subject matter relates to a ram clamping system for tools or workpieces that have an axial hole. The tools or workpieces are selectively affixable to the ram clamping system by a clamping ram. The clamping ram has an elongate cylindrical shaft with a collar, The collar forms a radial bulge at one end of the clamping ram.
The clamping ram is guided through the axial hole. The cylindrical shaft of the clamping ram is gripped by a collet, and is retracted axially along with the collet (which is the part that moves) to such an extent that the tool or workpiece is made to rest against a contact surface of a holder (the contact surface of the holder is arranged on the end face of the ram clamping system). The tool or workpiece is held clamped between the contact surface of the holder and the collar of the clamping ram.
The operating principle of Baldeck is entirely different. In Baldeck, the workpiece 4 is held by a radial expansion of the collet 12, which is induced by means of an expander 14 when the expander 14 of Baldeck is pulled back by a machine draw rod 20.
In this configuration, the collet 12 of Baldeck remains in position (i.e., static). On the other hand, the collet 120 of the present subject matter is "movably engaged" to the claimed main body 110 (as now recited in amended claim 1).
For this reason, amended claim 1 is patentably distinct from Baldeck.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “The cylindrical shaft of the clamping ram is gripped by a collet, and is retracted axially along with the collet (which is the part that moves) to such an extent that the tool or workpiece is made to rest against a contact surface of a holder”) 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 while claim 1 does indeed set forth the collet (120) of the ram clamping system (100) as being “movably engaged to the rotationally symmetrical main body (110)” in lines 4-5 thereof, claim 1 does not limit the “movably engaged” limitation to axial retraction of the collet (120). Also, in claim 1, while the ram (190) is set forth in lines 9-10 thereof as “extends through an interior space of the exchange holder (180) before entering the collet (120),” the ram (190) is never set forth in claim 1 as being “retracted axially along with the collet.”
Noting the above, with respect to Baldeck, Applicant argues that the collet (12) thereof “remain in position (i.e. static).” In the fully assembled ram clamping system of Baldeck, the
collet (12) thereof is not retracted axially. Having said that, the collet (12) of Baldeck is not actually required to do so. Again, this limitation is not recited in claim 1. Rather, claim 1 sets forth that the “collet is movably engaged to the rotationally symmetrical main body.” Baldeck reads on this limitation. First, please be advised 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 within Figure 1 of Baldeck. Next, be advised that when the drawbar (22) is pulled back, the 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. While being directly engaged to the rotationally symmetrical main body (8), when the collet (12) incurs the radial expansion, at least a portion of the collet (12) is being moved (e.g. radially expanded) with respect to the rotationally symmetrical main body (8). Please be advised that the “movably engaged” limitation of claim 1 does not preclude radial expansion. As long as the claimed collet incurs some movement in being engaged to the claimed rotationally symmetrical main body, then the claimed collet is indeed “movably engaged to the rotationally symmetrical main body.” Again, in Baldeck, a portion of the collet (12) incurs radial expansion while the collet (12) is directly engaged to the rotationally symmetrical main body (8). As such, the collet (12) of Baldeck is “movably engaged to the rotationally symmetrical main body [8].” Applicant’s argument is therefore deemed not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1 and Baldeck, Applicant also argues the following:
Moreover, in claim 1 the ram 190 "extends through an interior space (181) of the exchange holder (180) before entering the collet (120)" (the collet 120 being formed by arms 121 and jaws 111), as illustrated in the part of Figure 3 of the present subject matter reproduced below.
PNG
media_image4.png
488
660
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In contrast, Baldeck teaches in FIG. 1 thereof (see below) that its ram 14 does not extend through the interior space of any other part of Baldeck along its length "before entering" any other part, as recited in claim 1.
PNG
media_image5.png
472
622
media_image5.png
Greyscale
To this point, and with reference to FIG. 1 of Baldeck above, starting from the right-hand side of the drawing, ram 14 first enters the collet 12 and then enters the interior of the holder 10 without extending through the interior space of any element of Baldeck. Even when starting from the left-hand side of the drawing, the same thing applies.
For this reason, claim 1 is patentably distinct from Baldeck.
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but is not persuasive. Please be advised that Applicant’s argument concerns a product-by-process limitation. More specifically, please be advised that claim 1 is directed to a product (i.e. a ram clamping system) constructed by a process in which the ram extends through an interior space of the exchangeable holder before entering the collet (please see lines 9-10 of claim 1) (emphasis added). Therefore, the limitation concerning the extension of the ram through an interior space of the exchangeable holder before the ram enters the collet is considered to be a product-by-process limitation (emphasis added). 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.
Regarding Baldeck, the ram (14) passes through an interior space of the exchangeable holder (10), and also enters into the collet (12). As such, this structure of Baldeck corresponds to that set forth within lines 9-10 of claim 1. Again, the patentability of a product (in this instance, the ram clamping system) does not depend on its method of production. For at least this reason, Applicant’s argument is not found to be persuasive.
Having said that, in assembling the ram clamping system, for example, it is noted that within Baldeck that the ram (14) is insertable first into the interior space of the holder (10), e.g. the ram (14) of Baldeck is insertable from right-to-left (from the perspective of Figure 1) into the interior of the exchangeable holder (10). After having inserted the ram (14) in this manner, the collet (12) can be inserted from left-to-right into the interior space of the holder (10) and over the ram (14). These elements (10, 12, 14) can then be mounted to the rotationally symmetrical main body (8) of the ram clamping system for subsequent use. Thus, in this way, the ram (14) extends through the interior space of the exchangeable holder (10) before entering the collet (12). For this reason as well, Applicant’s argument is not found to be 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights