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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, Species G and J, in the reply filed on 31 January 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant has elected claims 1-2, 5-21, 23-25, and 27-35.
The traversal of the restriction between inventions is on the ground(s) that the preliminary amendment amends independent claim 13 of Group II to depend from independent claim 1 of Group I. This is found persuasive and both groups have been examined.
The traversal of the election of species is on the ground(s) that there would be no burden on the Examiner to search and examine all of the species. This is not found persuasive because the non-elected species will at least require additional text searching not required for the elected species, and would likely also require additional classification searches. Examination burden comes from developing and analyzing synonyms for each different species. Examination burden would also increase exponentially in subsequent actions as the subject matter further diverges due to increasing specificity of the separately claimed elements.
It is noted that claims 5, 15, 24, 27-28, and 30-35 are directed to species non-elected, and these claims have been withdrawn from consideration, but will be considered for rejoinder upon allowance of the application.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3-5, 15, 22, 24, 26-28, and 30-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 31 January 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “912” and “936”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “952” has been used to designate both the pressurized fluid supply inlet and the second pressurized fluid line. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 1 and 13 be found allowable, claim 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 14 and 29 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "a tool support connection" in line 2. However, there is already antecedent basis for this limitation in parent claim 1, making it unclear whether this refers to the same tool support connection or a different one. For the purposes of examination, it has been assumed that these limitations refer to the same tool support connection.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the fluid inlet port" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-2, 8-14, 18-20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ubele (DE 10 2019 124 519 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ubele discloses an expansion sleeve 1 for receiving a tool shank (not shown, see abstract), the expansion sleeve comprising: a generally cylindrical body 2 defining a longitudinal axis X and comprising: an inner wall 15; an outer wall 7 integrally formed with the inner wall; and a pressurized fluid chamber 11 located radially between and encapsulated in the inner wall and the outer wall; and a front flange 3 extending radially outward from the outer wall, wherein the front flange comprises a tool support connection 4 structured and arranged to fasten the front flange to a tool support member (screws attach through bore 4 to a tool support member that is a machine tool).
Regarding claim 2, Ubele discloses wherein the pressurized fluid chamber 11 comprises: a generally cylindrical outer radial wall (outer wall of pressure chamber 11); and a generally cylindrical inner radial wall (inner wall of pressure chamber 11) radially inside and separated from the outer radial wall.
Regarding claim 8, Ubele discloses wherein an outer surface of the outer wall 7 of the expansion sleeve 1 is tapered radially inward along the longitudinal axis of the expansion sleeve from the front flange toward a rear edge of the expansion sleeve (the sleeve may be a standardized HSK taper sleeve).
Regarding claim 9, Ubele discloses wherein the outer surface is tapered at an angle from 1° to 6° (HSK taper sleeves are known in the art to have a standard taper of 5.72 degrees).
Regarding claim 10, Ubele discloses further comprising a pressurized fluid inlet port 12b/16 in fluid communication with the pressurized fluid chamber 11.
Regarding claim 11, Ubele discloses wherein the fluid inlet port 12b/16 extends axially into the pressurized fluid chamber 11 (portion 12b extends axially into pressure chamber 11).
Regarding claim 12, Ubele discloses wherein the fluid inlet port 12b/16 extends radially into the pressurized fluid chamber 11 (portion 16 extends radially into pressure chamber 11).
Regarding claim 13, Ubele discloses a hydraulic chuck assembly comprising: a tool support member (screws attach through bore 4 to a tool support member that is a machine tool); and an expansion sleeve 1 as recited in Claim 1 inserted in the tool support member.
Regarding claim 14, Ubele discloses wherein the front flange 3 comprises the tool support connection 4 structured and arranged to fasten the front flange to the tool support member.
Regarding claim 18, Ubele discloses wherein an outer surface of the outer wall 7 of the expansion sleeve 1 is tapered radially inward along the longitudinal axis of the expansion sleeve from the front flange toward a rear edge of the expansion sleeve (the sleeve may be a standardized HSK taper sleeve), and the tool support member (machine tool) comprises an axial bore having an inner surface that is tapered radially inward along the longitudinal axis of the expansion sleeve from a tool receptacle front end to a bottom of the axial bore (for receiving the expansion sleeve).
Regarding claim 19, Ubele discloses wherein the outer surface of the expansion sleeve is tapered at an angle from 1° to 6° (HSK taper sleeves are known in the art to have a standard taper of 5.72 degrees).
Regarding claim 20, Ubele discloses wherein the inner surface of the axial bore (of the machine tool) is tapered at an angle from 1° to 6° (HSK taper sleeves are known in the art to have a standard taper of 5.72 degrees).
Regarding claim 25, Ubele discloses wherein the expansion sleeve 1 comprises a pressurized hydraulic fluid inlet port 12b/16 in flow communication with the pressurized fluid chamber 11.
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 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 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.
Claims 6, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ubele.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Ubele discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except Ubele does not disclose wherein the front flange is separately formed from the outer wall of the expansion sleeve. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have made the sleeve and flange from two separate parts that are mechanically joined for the purpose being able to use the sleeve with different sized flanges, because it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)
Regarding claim 21, Ubele discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except Ubele does not disclose wherein an interference fit is provided between the tapered outer surface of the outer wall of the expansion sleeve and the tapered inner surface of the axial bore. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art of HSK taper shanks to use an interference fit between the expansion sleeve and the machine tool bore for the purpose of ensuring precise positioning of the joint.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ubele in view of Retzbach et al. (WO 98/07538).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Ubele discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except Ubele does not disclose wherein an outer surface of the outer wall of the expansion sleeve comprises at least one anti-rotation rib extending in a direction parallel with the longitudinal axis, the tool support member comprises an axial bore having an inner surface, and the inner surface comprises at least one anti-rotation channel extending in a direction parallel with the longitudinal axis structured and arranged to receive the at least one anti-rotation rib. Retzbach et al. teaches the use of an hydraulic chuck assembly 1 that comprises an anti-rotation rib 17 that fits within a groove 18 in the chuck body for the purpose of preventing rotational slippage of a clamped tool during machining. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have combined the expansion sleeve and tool support member with the anti-rotation rib and groove of Retzbach et al. in order to prevent the clamped tool from slipping during a machining operation.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ubele in view of Herud et al. (CN 103878404 A).
Regarding claim 23, Ubele discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except Ubele does not disclose wherein the tool support connection comprises external threads on an outside diameter of the flange threadingly engaging internal threads on an inner radial surface of an annular front recess of the tool support member. Herud teaches the use of an expansion sleeve 18 with a flange 40 that uses threads 50 that are threadingly engaged with internal threads on an inner radial surface of front recess of a tool support member 16 for the purpose of providing a high precision connection between the expansion sleeve and the tool support member. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have combined the expansion sleeve and tool support member with the threaded connection of Herud in order to provide an alternative, well-known means for connecting the expansion sleeve to the tool support member.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 29 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANDREW GATES whose telephone number is (571)272-5498. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-6, Alt Fr 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil Singh, can be reached on 571-272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC A. GATES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722 26 March 2026
Prosecution Insights