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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10, drawn to “A fixing system for fixing a tool bit to a tool having an axis of rotation (Z) for working the bit”) in the reply filed on 9/30/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/30/2025. Drawings The drawings are objected to because the figures exhibit poor line quality. Specifically, Figures 1-4a and 6c-7b exhibit poor line quality. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ a reversible securing element to secure said bit to said bit holder” in claim 1 ; “ a locking element ” (noting that the term “locking” is a function, such that the claim recites an element which performs the function of “locking”, but recites no additional structure to perform the function of “locking”) in claim 4; “ an activation element ” (noting that the term “activation” is a function, such that the claim recites an element which performs the function of “activation”, but recites no additional structure to perform the function of “activation”) in claim 4 ; “ a locking element ” (noting that the term “locking” is a function, such that the claim recites an element which performs the function of “locking”, but recites no additional structure to perform the function of “locking”) in claim 6; “ a locking element ” (noting that the term “locking” is a function, such that the claim recites an element which performs the function of “locking”, but recites no additional structure to perform the function of “locking”) in claim 7; “ an activation element ” (noting that the term “activation” is a function, such that the claim recites an element which performs the function of “activation”, but recites no additional structure to perform the function of “activation”) in claim 8. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3 of the claim, “said bit supports” should be amended to “said plurality of bit supports”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 4 of the claim, “a bit” should be amended to “a respective bit”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 1 of the claim, “said bit supports” should be amended to “said plurality of bit supports”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 4 of the claim, each instance of “it” should be replaced with, “the locking element”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: On each of lines 7 and 9 of the claim, each instance of “it” should be replaced with, “the expander”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 1 of the claim, “the said bit box” should be amended to either “[[the]] said bit box” or to “the said bit box” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 4 of the claim, “a first portion” should be amended to “a respective first portion”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 6 of the claim, “a second portion” should be amended to “a respective second portion”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2 of the claim, “at least one sensor” should be amended to “at least one respective sensor”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 1 of the claim, “said bit supports” should be amended to “said plurality of bit supports” should be inserted . Appropriate correction is required. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: On each of lines 3 and 4 of the claim, “a bit” should be amended to “[[a]] the bit”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 4 of the claim, “a bit holder” should be amended to “[[a]] the bit holder”. Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant 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 1-2 of claim 1 state, “an axis of rotation (Z) for working the bit.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to how or in what way that the claimed axis of rotation (Z) is “for working” the bit. In other words, the axis of rotation (Z) is not a tangible element, and because of that, it is unclear as to how the axis of rotation provides “for working” the bit. Examiner suggests the following amendment so as to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph : “an axis of rotation (Z) for working about which the bit is set in rotation ”. Line 7 of claim 1 states, “said bit” . This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if “said bit” of line 7 is intended to reference the “tooling bit” (of line 1) or if instead “said bit” of line 7 is intended to reference a particular bit of “each bit” (of line 4) and “said bits” (of line 6), for example. Line 10 of claim 1 states, “said bit support ” . This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular bit support of the “plurality of bit supports” (of line 3) that “said bit support” is intended to reference. Lines 13-14 of claim 1 states, “a first movement along the axis (Z) of rotation of the tool of said bit holder.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as written, it is unclear if Applicant setting forth, for example, “the tool” as being a part of “said bit holder” with “the tool of said bit holder”, or if instead Applicant is setting forth “a first movement” being “of said bit holder”. If it is the former, it is unclear as to how or in what way that “the tool” is an element of said “bit holder”. Lines 3-4 of claim 2 state, “the combination of a translation of said bit holder along the axis (Z), and a translation in the plane P, carrying with it said bit support.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if “the combination of a translation of said bit holder along the axis (Z), and a translation in the plane P, carrying with it said bit support” is a same combination or is a different combination than the “combination of a first movement along the axis (Z) of rotation of the tool of said bit holder towards said bit support so that said bit holder faces said bit support, and a second movement of said bit holder carrying with it said bit support” that was previously set forth in lines 13-16 of claim 1. Line 4 of claim 2 states, “carrying with it said bit support.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to what “it” is referring. Is “it” referring to the “bit holder” or to some other element? Lines 3-4 of claim 3 state, “the combination of a translation of said bit holder along the axis (Z), and a translation along the axis (X), carrying with it said bit support.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, as it is unclear if “the combination of a translation of said bit holder along the axis (Z), and a translation along the axis (X), carrying with it said bit support” is a same combination or is a different combination than the “combination of a first movement along the axis (Z) of rotation of the tool of said bit holder towards said bit support so that said bit holder faces said bit support, and a second movement of said bit holder carrying with it said bit support” that was previously set forth in lines 13-16 of claim 1. Line 4 of claim 3 states, “carrying with it said bit support.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to what “it” is referring. Is “it” referring to the “bit holder” or to some other element? Claim 5 recites the limitation "the periphery" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the periphery" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first portion" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the opening" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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. Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebeling (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2018/0304423 A1) in view of Hajdukiewicz (U.S. Patent No. 5,971,903 A). Claim 1 : Figure 6 of Ebeling shows a fixing system ( 2 10) for fixing a tooling bit (20+22) to a tool (12) having an axis of rotation (76) for working the bit (20+22). As can be seen in at least Figure 6 , the fixing system (10) comprises a bit box (230) comprising a bit support (232+234+282), said bit support (232+234+282) being movable and carrying the bit (20+22). Please be advised that Figure 6 shows the bit support (232+234+282) being movable between a phantom position and a solid position [paragraph 0042]. It is noted that each bit (20+22) has a first working end (22) and a second end (20). The fixing system (210) further comprises a bit holder (14) having a (proximal) first end able to be secured to one end of said tool (12) and a (distal) second end configured to be secured to said second end (20) of the bit (20+22). Pleas e be advised that line 7 of claim 1 set forth therein, “ a reversible securing element to secure said bit to said bit holder.” Noting this, “a reversible securing element” is being interpreted by Examiner under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-A I A 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Please be advised that said “reversible securing element” is interpret ed as comprising the structure disclosed on page 8, lines 18 - 2 2 of Applicant’s specification filed on 1 2 / 21 /2022, as well as equivalents thereto. As t o the prior art, Ebeling shows a locking element (84) , an expander element (82) , and an activation element (86) . With regards to the locking element (84) , it comprises balls (84) arranged in depressions (132) of the bit holder (14) when the bit (20+22) is attached thereto. As to the expander element (82), while not provided in the bit holder (14), it is a movable rod (82) that is movable between a deployed position (like in Figure 8 ) and a folded position (like in Figure 9 ). Regarding the activation element (86), it is embodied as a biasing member (86) that is secured to the expander element (82), and is arranged on the periphery of the bit holder (14), specifically on a periphery of the drive square (130) of the bit holder (14) (see again Figure 8 ). In use, said locking element (84), expander element (82), and activation element (86) provide for reversibly securing the bit (20+22) to the bit holder (14) [paragraphs 0034-0036]. Based on the foregoing, the combination of the locking element (84), expander element (82), and activation element (86) is an equivalent of the “reversible securing element” of the claim. This is because the combination of the locking element (84), expander element (82), and activation element (86) of Ebeling carries out the function specified in line 7 of claim, the function being, “secure said bit to said bit holder.” Also, this combination (82, 84, 86) of Ebeling is not excluded by any explicit definition provided in Applicant’s specification, and said combination (82, 84, 86) of Ebeling produces substantially the same result as the corresponding “ reversible securing element ” of Applicant. Thus, the combination (82, 84, 86) of the locking element (84), the expander element (82), and the activation element (86) of Ebeling will hereinafter be referred to by Examiner as the “reversible securing element (82, 84, 86). Next, with respect to the bit (20+22), it is able to assume at least two states to said bit holder (14), the at least two states comprising a locked state and a released state. Regarding the former, said locked state is a state in which said bit (20+22) is engaged on said bit holder (14) and is at a distance from said bit support (232+234+282). As to the released state, it is shown within Figure 9 of Ebeling, and corresponds to a state wherein said bit (20+22) is at a distance from the bit holder (14) and rests on said bit support (232+234+282). Next , the bit (20+22) is switchable from said released state to said locked state by a combination of a first movement and a second movement. Regarding the first movement, it corresponds to movement along the axis of rotation (76) of the tool (12) by said bit holder (14) toward said bit support (232+234+282) so that said bit holder (14) faces said bit support (232+234+282). Please note that Figure 6 shows said bit holder (14) so aligned for this first movement along the axis of rotation (76). Regarding the second movement, it corresponds to movement of said bit holder (14) carrying with it (14) said bit support (232+234+282) so that the bit (20+22) is engaged and locked on said bit support (232+234+282). This will now be explained by Examiner. By taking advantage of horizontal movement of the tool (12) without requiring any supplemental manipulation or introducing other input forces, the second movement of the bit holder (14) advances the bit support (232+234+282) on a rail (278) leftward as viewed in Figure 6 (in the phantom position) so that the bit (20+22) is engaged and locked on said bit holder (14) as in Figure 8 [paragraph 0042]. Ebeling though, does not provide disclosure on the bit box (230) as “comprising a plurality of bit supports.” Rather, as can be seen in Figure 6, the bit box (230) has a singular bit support (232+234+282). Please be advised that Figure 6 shows the singular bit support (232+234+282) as being mounted on a support plate (236) of the bit box (230). Hajdukiewicz though, shows in Figure 1 a bit box comprising a support plate (14) on which are mounted two bit supports (20). 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 provided the bit box (230) of Ebeling with a second bit support (232+234+282) on the corresponding support plate (236), in accordance with the disclosure of Hajdukiewicz , so as to provide the advantage of increased capacity, thereby enabling a plurality of bits (20+22) to be stored at a given time. Based on the foregoing, the modified bit box (230) of Ebeling comprises a plurality of bit supports (232+234+282) , each of said plurality of bit supports (232+234+282) being movable on a corresponding rail (278) and each carrying a respective bit (20+22) having a corresponding first working end (22) and a corresponding second end (20). Claim 2 : As was stated above in the rejection of claim 1, the modified bit box (230) of Ebeling comprises a plurality of bit supports (232+234+282), each of said plurality of bit supports (232+234+282) being movable on a corresponding rail (278) and each carrying a respective bit (20+22) having a corresponding first working end (22) and a corresponding second end (20). Noting th i s, each bit support (232+234+282) is mounted to move on the rail (278) corresponding thereto in translation in a plane perpendicular to the (vertical) axis of rotation (76) . Be advised that switching from said released state to said locked state by each bit support (232+234+282) is made by a combination of a translation of said bit holder (14) along the axis of rotation (76) and a translation in the aforesaid plane by said bit holder (14) carrying with it (14) a selected one of the bit supports (232+234+282) so as that said bit holder (14) faces said selected one of the bit supports (232+234+282) and so that the bit (20+22) is engaged and locked on the bit holder (14). Claim 3 : Regarding the bit support (14), it is mounted to move in translation (by means of horizontal movement of the tool (12)) along an axis perpendicular to the axis of rotation (76) [paragraph 0042]. Noting this, the bit (20+22) can be switched from said released state to said locked state by combination of a translation of said bit holder (14) along the axis of rotation (76) and a translation of said bit holder (14) along the axis perpendicular to the axis of rotation (76), wherein the bit support (14) carries with it (14) a selected one of the bit supports (232+234+282) so as that said bit holder (14) faces said selected one of the bit supports (232+234+282) and so that the bit (20+22) is engaged and locked on the bit holder (14). Claim 4 : As was stated above within the rejection of claim 1, the reversible securing element (82, 84, 86) comprises the locking element (84), the expander element (82), and the activation element (86). Pleas e be advised that line 3 of claim 4 set s forth therein, “ a locking element.” Noting this, “a lockin g element” is being interpreted by Examiner under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-A I A 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. B e advised that said “ locking element” is interpret ed as comprising the structure disclosed on page 8, lines 27 - 28 of Applicant’s specification filed on 1 2 / 21 /2022, as well as equivalents thereto. With regards to the prior art and Ebeling, the locking element (84) of Ebeling corresponds in structure to the “locking element” of Applicant, as the locking element (84) of Ebeling is embodied as balls (84) arranged in depressions (132) of the bit holder (14) (at least when the bit (20+22) is attached thereto) on the (inner) periphery of the expander element (82) of Ebeling. Please be advised that the locking element (84) of Ebeling is movable between at least one released position (see Figure 9) and a locking position (see Figure 8). Regarding the at least one released position (see Figure 9), the locking element (84) does not act on said bit (20+22) in that the locking element (84) does not secure the bit (20+22) by means of the second end (22) thereof to the drive square (130) of the bit holder (14). Next, pleas e be advised that line 5 of claim 4 set s forth therein, “locking means.” Noting this, “ lockin g means ” is being interpreted by Examiner under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-A I A 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph . B e advised that said “ locking means ” is interpret ed as comprising the structure disclosed on page 8, lines 28 - 30 of Applicant’s specification filed on 1 2 / 21 /2022, as well as equivalents thereto. With regards to the prior art and Ebeling, the body (80) (see Figures 8-9) of Ebeling corresponds in structure to the “locking means” of Applicant, because the body (80) is a housing for the locking element (84) corresponding to the size of each of the balls (84), noting that each of the balls (84) is seated within an opening of the body (80). As such, the body (80) of Ebeling will hereinafter be referred to by Examiner as “the locking means (80).” Noting this, in the aforesaid locking position, the locking element (84) is housed in the locking means (80) of said bit (20+22) (see Figure 8), said locking element (84) and said locking means (80) of said bit (20+22) having a complementary shape. Regarding the expander element (82), it (82) is movable between at least one deployed position (see Figure 8) wherein it holds the locking element (84) in the locking position in said locking means (80), and a folded position (see Figure 9) wherein it (82) does not act on said locking element (84) (as in Figure 9). Pleas e be advised that line 10 of claim 4 set s forth therein, “ a n activation element.” Noting this, “ a n activation element ” is being interpreted by Examiner under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-A I A 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. B e advised that said “ activation element” is interpret ed as comprising the structure disclosed on page 9 , lines 15 - 19 of Applicant’s specification filed on 1 2 / 21 /2022, as well as equivalents thereto. Regarding the prior art and Ebeling, Figures 8 and 9 show the activation element (86) thereof. Said activation element (86) is embodied as a biasing member (86) that is secured to the expander element (82), and is arranged on the periphery of the bit holder (14), specifically on a periphery of the drive square (130) of the bit holder (14) (see again Figure 8). (Please be advised that while the activation element (86) comprises a series of rings, e.g. each turn of the activation element (86)/biasing member itself being a given ring in accordance with lines 15-16 of page 7, none of these rings exhibit “a diameter greater than the diameter of the bit holder in accordance with lines 17-18 of page 7 of Applicant’s specification). As can be seen between Figures 8 and 9, the activation element (86) provides for activation (86) of each of the expander element (82) and the locking element (84). With this activation, the balls (84) of the locking element (84) are activated for arrangement in the depressions (132) of the bit holder (14) as in Figure 8. Based on the foregoing, the activation element (86) of Ebeling is an equivalent of the “ activation element” of the claim. This is because the activation element (86) of Ebeling carries out the function specified in line 10 of claim, the function being, “ activation .” Also, the activation element (86) of Ebeling is not excluded by any explicit definition provided in Applicant’s specification, and said activation element (86) of Ebeling produces substantially the same result as the corresponding activation element ” of Applicant. Claim 5 : With regards to the prior art and Ebeling, the locking element (84) of Ebeling is embodied as balls (84) arranged in depressions (132) of the bit holder (14) (at least when the bit (20+22) is attached thereto) on the (inner) periphery of the expander element (82) of Ebeling. Claim 6 : Please be advised that the activation element (86) comprises a series of rings, e.g. each turn of the activation element (86)/biasing member itself being a given ring. Noting this, each of the rings (at least when the bit (20+22) is attached to the bit holder (14)) is arranged on a periphery of said bit holder (14), specifically on a periphery of the drive square (130) of the bit holder (14) (see again Figure 8 of Ebeling), and secured to said locking element (84). Claim 7 : Regarding the expander element (82), as can be seen in Figures 8-9 of Ebeling, it is formed as rod (82) that is movable between a deployed position (like in Figure 8) and a folded position (like in Figure 9). As to the deployed position, it is where the expander element (82) holds the locking element (84) in the locking position in said locking means (80). Then, as to the folded position, it is where the expander element (82) does not act on the locking element (84). Claim 9 : As was stated above in the rejection of claim 1, the modified bit box (230) of Ebeling comprises a plurality of bit supports (232+234+282), each of said plurality of bit supports (232+234+282) being movable on a corresponding rail (278) and each carrying a respective bit (20+22) having a corresponding first working end (22) and a corresponding second end (20). Please note that the plurality of bit supports (232+234+282) is equal to two bit supports. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebeling (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2018/0304423 A1) in view of Hajdukiewicz (U.S. Patent No. 5,971,903 A), and further in view o f Koizumi (U.S. Patent No. 10,661,403 B2). Claim 10 : Ebeling does not provide disclosure on each of the plurality of bit supports (232+234+282) further comprising , “at least one sensor belonging to the group consisting of: a sensor for presence of a bit in contact with the associated bit support; a sensor for detecting position of a bit relative to a bit holder; a sensor for presence of the bit support vertically to the first portion of the opening, and a sensor for presence of the bit vertically above the first portion of the opening.” Figure 1A of Koizumi though, shows therein a fixing system comprising a plurality of bit supports (12), each of which comprising a sensor (18) that detects whether or not a tool/bit (12) is being held by the corresponding bit support (12) [column 3, lines 66-67]. That is to say that each sensor (18) is for detecting presence of a tool/bit (12) being in contact with the associated bit support (12). 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 provided each of the plurality of bit supports (232+234+282) of Ebeling with a respective sensor (18) of Koizumi, so as to provide the advantage of being able to determine at each said plurality of bit supports (232+234+282) as to whether there is presence of a given tool bit (20+22) in contact therewith, thereby detecting whether or not the tool/bit (12) is being held by the corresponding bit support (12) . Allowable Subject Matter Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten (without broadening) 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Vitale whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5098 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Sunil K Singh can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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