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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/25/2026 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, 2, 4, 7, and 9-11 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 16-18 of claim 1 state, “the first stop surface abuts the fourth stop surface of the first adjustment part that is a farthest distance in the radial direction away from the machining tool upon the actuation part being connected to the machining tool.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because noting that the machining tool (0) seemingly wraps around the adjustment unit (1) (note the U-shape of the machining tool (0) from the perspective of Figure 1, for example), isn’t the claimed region of the first adjustment part (2) also disposed at a closest distance in the radial direction (R-R) to the machining tool (0)? Please note how the claimed region of the first adjustment part (2) is the portion of the first adjustment part (2) that is located closest to the bottom of the machining tool (0) in the radial direction (R-R) from the perspective of Figure 1, for example. As such, with the claimed region of the first adjustment part (2) seemingly being both the farthest region and the closest region of the first adjustment part (2) in the radial direction (R-R) to the machining tool (0) depending upon the point of reference, it is unclear as to what meaning the claimed limitation really has.
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, 2, 4, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matheis (U.S. PG Publication No. 2004/0156688 A1).
Please be advised that Matheis was cited on the PTO-892 that mailed on 2/25/2025.
Claim 1: Figures 1, 6, and 7 of Matheis show an adjustment unit for a guide bar (2) on a machining tool (3), the adjustment unit of Matheis comprising an actuation part (10), a first adjustment part (12), a second adjustment part (10a), and the guide bar (2).
With regards to the actuation part (10), it (10) is configured to be connected to the machining tool (3) and indirectly acts with the guide bar (2) in order to move the guide bar (2) continuously along a radial direction (by a value Δr) of the machining tool (3) by actuation of the actuation part (10).
As can best be seen in Figure 7, the first adjustment part (12) has a first stop surface (14) and a fourth stop surface (16). With regards to the second adjustment part (10a), it has a third stop surface (19), while the guide bar (2) has a second stop surface (22).
Figure 7 shows the fourth stop surface (16) being in contact with the third stop surface (19), and the first stop surface (14) being in contact with the second stop surface (22).
Next, movement of the actuation part (10) causes the second adjustment part (10a) to move. Noting this, contact between the third stop surface (19) and the fourth stop surface (16) causes the first adjustment part (12) to move axially (by a value Δk) [paragraph 0083], and contact between the first stop surface (14) and the second stop surface (22) causes the guide bar (2) to move radially (by the value Δr) [paragraphs 0083 and 0084].
Next, Figure 7 of Matheis has been annotated and provided on the following page. In this annotated figure, Examiner has pointed to regions of the first adjustment part (12), including a region of the first adjustment part (12) in which the first stop surface (14) abuts/intersects the fourth stop surface (16).
PNG
media_image1.png
608
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Next, Figure 1 of Matheis has been annotated (see next page). As can be seen therein, the region of the first adjustment part (12) in which the first stop surface (14) abuts the fourth stop surface (16) “is a farthest distance in the radial direction away from the machining tool [3] upon the actuation part [10] being connected to the machining tool [3].” In other words, the region of the first adjustment part (12) in which the first stop surface (14) thereof abuts the corresponding fourth stop surface (16) is the region of the first adjustment part (12) that is at a farthest radial outward distance from the machining tool (3).
In order to better explain this, Examiner has also identified a second region of the first adjustment part (12), wherein said second region can be seen above within annotated Figure 7 and can also below within annotated Figure 1. Noting this, as compared to the second region of the first adjustment part (12) of Matheis, for example, the region of the first adjustment part (12) in which the first stop surface (14) abuts the fourth stop surface (16) is the region of the first adjustment part (12) that is disposed at a farthest distance in the radial direction away from the machining tool (3) upon the actuation part (10) being connected to the machining tool (3).
PNG
media_image2.png
674
1044
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: As can be seen in Figure 6 of Matheis, the actuation part (10) is a screw having a hexagonal socket (1) [paragraph 0083].
Claim 4: As can be seen in annotated Figure 7 of Matheis (next page), the first stop surface (14) is located at angle alpha opposite to the radial direction, and the second stop surface (22) is located at angle alpha opposite to the radial direction.
PNG
media_image3.png
540
742
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 7: As can be seen in Figure 7 of Matheis, the third stop surface (19) is located at angle β1 opposite to an axial direction of the machining tool (3) (wherein the axial direction is represented by the dashed line extending left-to-right/right-to-left in Figure 7), and the fourth stop surface (14) is located at angle β1 opposite to the axial direction.
Claim 9: As can be seen in Figures 1 and 6 of Matheis, the adjustment unit further comprises a fastening part (4), wherein the fastening part (4) is configured to fasten the guide bar (2) against the machining tool (3) in at least a radial direction of the machining tool (3). Please be advised that the fastening part (4) fastens the guide bar (2) against a guide surface (32) of the machining tool (3), wherein the guide surface (32) extends substantially in the radial direction.
Claim 10: As can be seen in Figures 1 and 6 of Matheis, the fastening part (4) is a screw (4) [paragraph 0081].
Claim 11: Figure 1 of Matheis shows a machining tool (3) comprising at least one adjustment unit for guide bar (2) according to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1 and Matheis, Applicant argues the following:
Claim 1, as amended, further recites that the first stop surface abuts the fourth stop surface at a region of the first adjustment part that is a farthest distance in the radial direction away from the machining tool upon the actuation part being connected to the machining tool.
Matheis does not disclose or suggest an adjustment unit as recited in claim 1, in which a region where the first stop surface abuts the fourth stop surface is a region of the first adjustment part that is a farthest distance in the radial direction away from the machining tool. In Matheis, the region of the adjustment wedge 12 where the wedge surface 14 abuts the actuation wedge surface 16 is recessed in the adjustment wedge 12, not a farthest distance in the radial direction away from the machining tool. In addition, Matheis does not suggest modifying the adjustment wedge 12 in such a way that it would satisfy the above-described feature recited in claim 1, nor does Matheis disclose any purpose that would be achieved or advanced by attempting to do so.
Applicant's argument has been considered, but is not persuasive.
First, please be advised that Applicant did not claim the “region” in such a way that as it pertains to Matheis that the region is strictly limited to, for example, the “recessed” area where the first stop surface (14) of Matheis and the corresponding fourth stop surface (16) abut.
Noting the above, Examiner has annotated Figure 7 of Matheis and provided it below. In this annotated figure, Examiner has pointed to regions of the first adjustment part (12), including the region thereof in which the first stop surface (14) abuts the fourth stop surface (16). Aside from this particular region, Examiner has also pointed to a corresponding second region. Please be advised that Applicant didn’t set forth the adjustment unit in claim 1 in such a way that multiple regions were, for example, precluded.
PNG
media_image1.png
608
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As can be seen above in annotated Figure 7, the adjustment unit (12) comprises two regions, including the region of the first adjustment part (12) in which the first stop surface (14) abuts the fourth stop surface (16).
Next, Figure 1 of Matheis has been annotated (see next page). As can be seen therein, the region of the first adjustment part (12) in which the first stop surface (14) abuts the fourth stop surface (16) “is a farthest distance in the radial direction away from the machining tool [3] upon the actuation part [10] being connected to the machining tool [3].” In other words, the region of the first adjustment part (12) in which the first stop surface (14) thereof abuts the corresponding fourth stop surface (16) is the region of the first adjustment part (12) that is at a farthest radial outward distance from the machining tool (3).
PNG
media_image2.png
674
1044
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Please be advised that Applicant didn’t set forth any boundaries to the claimed region, and didn’t limit the claimed first adjustment part to having a particular number of regions either. Noting this, as compared to the second region of the first adjustment part (12), for example, the region of the first adjustment part (12) in which the first stop surface (14) of Matheis abuts the fourth stop surface (16) is the region of the first adjustment part (12) that is disposed at a farthest distance in the radial direction away from the machining tool (3) upon the actuation part (10) being connected to the machining tool (3). Based on the foregoing, Matheis reads on the new limitation of claim 1, and as such, Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Examiner’s Comment
Please be advised that along with the Request for Continued Examination, Applicant filed a Letter Requesting Interview with Examiner on 3/25/2026. On 4/30/2026 Examiner spoke with Applicant’s Representative (Mr. Kevin Brown, Reg. No. 32,402), and it was agreed that an interview would not be conducted prior to first action like originally requested.
Conclusion
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