[patriqq]

This video demonstrates a square shaft guide/clamp that I came up with:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NFa2yWSfy8]Clamping Linear Bearing - For Square Shaft - YouTube[/ame]

As you can see, the application is geared more towards manual positioning systems that require a rigid lock-up rather than conventional CNC machines. However I do plan to add a leadscrew assembly to the embodiment shown in the vid. The leadscrew assembly will be "floating" - meaning the attachment to the shaft will be another clamp. This will allow me to loosen all clamps to slide the shaft freely. I can then lock the clamp that attaches the leadscrew to the shaft and move the shaft with the leadscrew. When the desired position is reached, the remaining two clamps will be locked.

The use of a single square shaft provides linear motion and allows 90° indexing of the shaft assembly.

The mechanism may seem trivial and possibly obvious, but it solves several problems present in current devices.

If the patent is granted, I imagine this device to be manufactured with low-friction liners (frelon, etc) on the 4 interior surfaces.

Thanks for watching and/or commenting.

[joesz]

Patrick great idea but I hope you did some research before you gave a lawyer any money for 2 reasons , one I think I have seen a similar device on the market already two it is unlikely you will be able to patent that without attaching it to a very specific application, it is a common clamping method used on a lot of applications.
As you may or may not know the patent is going to cost thousands of dollars and it does not protect you against overseas companies stealing the idea. An over seas patent does nothing either unless you have nearly unlimited funds to fight any patent infringment. You need to be very careful here on how much money you invest.

[patriqq]

Thanks for the comments and advice.

Yes, we have researched the "prior art" as required by the patent laws, and have not found this device. However, that doesn't mean this device isn't already out there - it just means that we didn't find it. So if you could please tell/show me what you saw, it would be greatly appreciated. If you are referring to a device that is basically a split collar with a square hole, or two opposing V-blocks that sandwich together, then we are confident that our device is distinct and have worded the patent application to draw that distinction. Of course, the patent office will have the last word.

I am aware of the protections offered and not offered by patents. A US patents doesn't stop an overseas company from making product X, but it does provide a means for the patent holder to attempt to recover royalties/damages (via litigation) in the event that product X is sold in the US.

[ThomasWayne]

There's every possibility the USPTO will grant your patent, since it is only in their benefit to do so. However, the principle and practice utilized in your clamping device has been used in industrial applications for decades, if not centuries.

In fact, I own several tripod easels that utilize the exact clamping principle shown in your drawings 19 & 20 to lock the three legs to a selected length, and I have seen numerous extension handles for various tools that use similar clamping mechanisms.

Presumably your argument for uniqueness is based on clamping "polygonal" (rather than cylindrical) objects - and that may very well be "unique" (though I believe I have already seen the principle used on square tubing). However, the greater obstacle to overcome is the requirement of being "un-obvious", and any interloper could easily - and probably successfully - argue that using an age old clamping principle for tubing shapes other than cylindrical is an idea that would easily occur to anyone "skilled in the arts". Certainly any layperson (read judge/jury) might have a real problem seeing any genius in the simple "change from round to square" on the tubing cross-section.

If the USPTO does grant your patent I would expect expensive difficulty enforcing the patent, along with little chance of success against a skilled defendant's IP attorney. Just my opinion, of course, but in light of the fact that very, VERY few patents ever result in any profit I would think you'd be best off creating some useful item that incorporates your clamping device, and let your patent (if granted) be icing on the cake - rather than expecting others to come up with useful applications for the idea and then be willing to pay you "royalties".

Not sure if you're getting your $.02 worth here, but that's how I'd advise any client who hired me for my opinion.

T.W.

[patriqq]

Thanks for your thoughts. If you can show me exactly where you saw this device, please do so. I have 9 months to arrive at a strategy and I value your opinions.

No, the uniqueness is not based on simply switching a round shaft for a square one. This has been done before, as embodied here:
Strut Clamps - Square Hole, Perpendicular Tapped | Mechanical Components for Assembly Automation - Misumi eCatalog
and
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Pacific-Bearing-PBC-495-Aluminum-Square/dp/B002SLBKE4]Amazon.com: Pacific Bearing PBC-495 Aluminum Square Clamp 1.50 Inch Sq. Shaft, 2.953 x .787 Long: Industrial & Scientific[/ame]

These types of square shaft clamps do not:
1. Apply their clamping pressure to all 4 flats of the shaft (only).
2. Force the shaft into an exact, repeatable position in respect to the base member. Doing so would require that two adjacent sides of the shaft are jammed into two adjacent sides of the base member (like a V-block).

There are additional distinctions, but these two are the crux of the matter.

[txcncman]

I am just waiting for you to spend your money for the laugh. Why would someone even post something like this here if they really thought they had such a novel idea?

[patriqq]

I would post here because:

1. If the device does already exist, this may be the place to bring it to light.
2. The very act of filing a patent and/or offering an item for sale is an act of disclosing the invention. The concept of patent-pending status is to permit the filer to probe the market, and allow him to disclose the invention while retaining patent rights (assuming the patent is granted). What difference does it make if that disclosure also occurs on a web forum?

[underthetire]

I know I've seen the same clamps on barfeeders for lathes. Think the old smw hydro units had those to adjust the swing out. My old bike rack had something just like it to mount the crossbars as well. You might want to look at the Thule and Yakima parts lists, mine was pretty old.

[tjb1]

Im sorry but that is extremely obvious...

[patriqq]

Im sorry but that is extremely obvious...

Yes, I understand. That is why I said "The mechanism may seem trivial and possibly obvious, but it solves several problems present in current devices."


Underthetire - thanks for the info. I do see some square shaft clamps by following your leads, but so far nothing that matches the distinctions mentioned here and in the vid.

[verohandymike]

I like this idea, and your application for a patent is valid. Never mind what appears to be negative comments, they are actually bits of good advice. No matter what you invent I bet I can point out a bunch of reasons why you will be in for a fight. And the overseas thing is a challenge we all have to face.
I say go for it.
BTW. When I saw your device I was hoping it was designed to fit various sized tubes. So I will give you this for free... The main back plate is OK; but change the design so that it can be supplied with front plates of different sizes, and different hole patterns (even different hole patterns on the back plate) so that the clamp will fit tubes of a range of sizes. Make sense?

[johnscnc]

i was looking for the april 1st date somwhere. take a look at the clamps on your bicycle seat post and handle bars. also the clamp in your video with the flat iron clamping sides are concetrating the clamping force near the corner not across the entire side as quoted. nicely made clamp though.

[gateman]

Lol. You posted pictures of a product on a website made of people with more manufacturing, designing, and reverse engineering skills than anywhere else you'll go.

[patriqq]

i was looking for the april 1st date somwhere. take a look at the clamps on your bicycle seat post and handle bars. also the clamp in your video with the flat iron clamping sides are concetrating the clamping force near the corner not across the entire side as quoted. nicely made clamp though.

Yes, as I've communicated earlier in this thread, I understand that my device is analogous/similar to round shaft clamps that are commonplace and square shaft clamps such as those I've linked to. I understand that it seems obvious; yet no one has produced a link to a matching device (so far). I think its hard for any device with only two moving parts to not seem obvious. One of my goals of posting here is to attempt to 'smoke out' any prior art. If prior art surfaces, it won't be the first time - I'll save the expense of filing the non-provisional application and move on.

You are absolutely correct, the clamping force is focused at two small areas, on two of the shaft's surfaces, near the corner, where it is most effective at limiting rotation. The clearance that is present in the relaxed position is still present at two locations adjacent to the base member, even when the pinch bolts are tightened. This provides some virtues, such as being compatible with a small range of shaft sizes, such as a range that corresponds to standard cold-rolled dimensional tolerances.

I don't recall claiming that the clamping pressure of this embodiment is applied evenly across the entire shaft surfaces; I believe I said it is applied to all four sides of the shaft, as opposed to the corners, or to less than four sides. I do have an embodiment that includes a means to even out the clamping pressure - it includes secondary interior pads that rotate on a hinge. Another option would be to put a 're-curve' on the clamping bands - this would expand the clamping area.

I like this idea, and your application for a patent is valid. Never mind what appears to be negative comments, they are actually bits of good advice. No matter what you invent I bet I can point out a bunch of reasons why you will be in for a fight. And the overseas thing is a challenge we all have to face.
I say go for it.
BTW. When I saw your device I was hoping it was designed to fit various sized tubes. So I will give you this for free... The main back plate is OK; but change the design so that it can be supplied with front plates of different sizes, and different hole patterns (even different hole patterns on the back plate) so that the clamp will fit tubes of a range of sizes. Make sense?

It does make sense - thank you. I do have an embodiment with an adjustable aperture to fit a limited range of sizes. Components that swap out is a good way to expand the range of size compatibility. Spacing pads that attach to the interior of the locking bands is another idea.

[joesz]

I was not trying to be negative in any way just trying to save you some possible problems and money. I have been involved with the patent process many times over the years so I know what is involved and just how difficult it is to get a patent that will stick. I also know that even if you did get an over seas patent it is meaningless unless you have unlimited funds to fight in court. I have seen it bankrupt multi million dollar companies. I wish I could tell you exactly where I saw this before but I do not recall. I have been in engineering for many years and I just seem to recall something very similar. That does not mean you can not patent it however but it could result in a lawsuit if someone that did come up with this idea does have proof of pre existing art I have seen that happen too. If you have an idea for the mass marketing of this my recomendation is to forget the patent and flood the market while you can because it is only a matter of time before the patent will be infringed by China or some other country if they see it is making money. If by that time you have already flooded the market it wont matter.
And do not let any negative comments stray you from your path this country was founded by great ideas and people willing to take risks I was just putting my 2 cents in to try to save you a bit of trouble, many people do not realize how complicated and expensive it is to patent something and they also do not realize that a patent does not protect you 100% even if you do spend the extra 10k or so for an overseas patent.

[patriqq]

Joesz -

Thanks - no, I did not take your comments negatively. All the feedback I'm getting here is extremely valuable. Thanks especially for yours.

If I'm not mistaken, US Patent laws have recently switched from first-to-invent to first-to-patent. This would suggest that I would be safe, even if prior art surfaces; however I may be mistaken. Obviously anything can be litigated.

[johnscnc]

i have a go-cart sitting here with an example of the hexagon "clamp" in the center of a sprocket on the rear axle i'll try to get a decent picture. if i can figure out how to upload it.

[patriqq]

If your hexagon clamp is like this:
Rigid coupling: hexagonal shaft collar - Stafford Manufacturing

then is is different than mine. Mine only contacts the hex shaft on 4 surfaces; 2 are jammed into the base member and 2 are pressed upon by the locking elements. The remaining 2 hex surfaces are spaced from the clamp by gaps. This is not obvious from the drawing I posted, but made clear in my patent application. Like the square clamp, this ensures that
1. The clamping pressure is applied to the flats only, rather than the corners, and
2. The shaft is forced into an exact and repeatable position in respect to the base member.
3. The clamp works (and meets criteria 1 & 2) even if the hex shaft or clamp is less-than-perfect form (i.e. not dimensional exact).

[joesz]

Patric patent laws can be tricky, its possible that a device like that used say for example on a specific piece of machinery is covered by a patent. It is possible the actual method it uses is covered by a patent it is also possible that several versions are covered. They get real picky and very specific to cover the bases and you may not be able to patent just the concept of how it works without applying it to a specific device. I have been through this a lot I do a lot of re design work to get around patent problems and it can get down to the smallest detail which you would think would not matter at all but turns out it is covered by the patent so you need to be real careful with how you proceed.

[johnscnc]

the clamp on this does clamp on all 6 sides. after looking at your drawing closer i see that the bottom and top edges do not contact.