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 Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have resolved the specification objections, claim objections, and 112 issues presented in the preceding Office Action.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the back surface 770 are not the “cylindrical or partially cylindrical guide body” shape required by the claim for the jaw elements. In making applicant’s arguments, applicant cites a definition of a cylinder and states that “a cylindrical shape is not the same as a conical shape”. The examiner respectfully notes that the claim does not require exclusively a cylindrical shape, but rather more broadly recites and permits a “partially cylindrical” shape. This “partially cylindrical” is seen e.g. in the form of a part of a cylinder being observable in cross-sectional view. The examiner additionally notes that Hughes in Para 0054 explicitly describes the shape of his device as being a “special case of a circular cylinder and, instead, the axis of the cylindrical surface 770 is merely inclined towards (and so as to intersect) the longitudinal axis 202 of the tool”. Respectfully, for this reason, the examiner finds applicant’s arguments unpersuasive. Not only would a person of ordinary skill understand the structure of Hughes as being partially cylindrical, under the broad reading described by the examiner above, Hughes itself explicitly describes this shape as having a cylindrical nature.
The examiner acknowledges that this is a broader interpretation than Applicant’s. However examiners are not only allowed to apply broad interpretations, but are required to do so, as it reduces the possibility that the claims, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. MPEP §2111. Patentability is determined by the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP §2111), not the narrowest reasonable interpretation. And Applicant does not have an explicit lexicographical statement in line with MPEP §2111.01 subsection IV requiring a specific interpretation of the relevant phrases which forces the examiner to interpret them only one way.
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hughes (US 20110259577 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hughes teaches a clamping head arrangement for clamping a drill rod element, having
- a plurality of clamping jaw elements (Fig 1c, segments 740), each of which has a clamping surface which is designed (Fig 1c, inner surface of 740) for clamping contact with a contact side of the drill rod element (Para 0041), and
- a main body (Fig 1c, 750e) with guide tracks (Para 0059, Fig 1c, frustoconical surfaces 752 of body 750 and keyway which engages key 742 of segments 740), along which the clamping jaw elements are displaceably mounted, wherein the guide tracks are angled to a centre axis of the clamping head arrangement (Para 0059, “frustoconical” surfaces are angled), so that displacement of the clamping jaw elements along the guide tracks causes axial and radial displacement of the clamping jaw elements with respect to the centre axis (Para 0059, Para 0054, “holder 740 constricts radially inward. Yet, when the holder 740 moves upward, towards the disengaged position (FIG. 4b) the holder 740 expands radially outward.”), wherein
- the clamping jaw elements are each designed with a cylindrical or partially cylindrical guide body (Fig 1c, Para 0059, back surface of segments 740 are at least partially cylindrical; Para 0054, back surface 770 is a “frusto-cone is the special case of a circular cylinder”) and
- the guide tracks in the main body are formed as partially cylindrical guide channels, in each of which the guide body of one of the plurality of clamping jaw elements is displaceably mounted (Para 0059, “that the engaging surfaces 770,752 are inclined cylindrical surfaces,”, these 770 are “guide channels” Para 0054, the jaw elements 740 are displaceable axially and radially).
Regarding claim 2, Hughes teaches wherein the partially cylindrical guide channels are open on a side facing the drill rod element to be clamped (Fig 1c, the guide channels 752 face the inner diameter/where the drill rod would be).
Regarding claim 3, Hughes teaches wherein the main body is designed annularly with a free interior for receiving the drill rod element and the guide channels are open to the interior (Fig 1a, annularly designed/with an open interior bore to receive a drill rod).
Regarding claim 4, Hughes teaches wherein the main body is designed in the form of a shaft or block (Fig 1c, the main body 750e is designed as a shaft or block, as seen) with an inner circumferential side in which the partially cylindrical guide channels with the clamping jaw elements are arranged (Fig 1c, located on the inner circumferenctial side of 750e), wherein a tubular drill rod element can be clamped on an inner side (Para 0041, 0054, 0059).
Regarding claim 5, Hughes teaches wherein the clamping jaw elements are connected to at least one actuator (Para 0055, hydraulic cylinders/actuators), which is mounted so as to be displaceable relative to the main body for displacing the clamping jaw elements (Para 0055, actuator, at least the portion coupled via 760 is displaceable).
Regarding claim 6, Hughes teaches wherein the at least one actuator is axially displaceable by means of at least one actuating cylinder (Para 0055, hydraulic cylinders/actuators).
Regarding claim 7, Hughes teaches wherein each clamping jaw element is connected to the actuator with a clearance via a connecting device (Fig 1c, Para 0059 clearance results from connecting device 760).
Regarding claim 8, Hughes teaches wherein a hook arrangement is formed on a rear region of each clamping jaw element to form the connecting device and engages in an associated receiving mount on the actuator (Para 0055, connecting device 760 is/is formed by a hook eye).
Regarding claim 9, Hughes teaches wherein the clamping head arrangement for forming a drill drive arrangement can be driven in rotation via at least one rotary drive (Fig 1c, Para 0059).
Regarding claim 10, Hughes teaches a drilling device for creating a borehole with at least one drill rod element (Para 0049, tubular member 105), wherein a clamping head arrangement according to claim 1 is provided (see parent claim).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THEODORE N YAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8745. The examiner can normally be reached typically 8am-4pm ET.
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, TARA SCHIMPF can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/THEODORE N YAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights