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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 4/23/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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:
“reversible securing elements to secure each tooling bit of said plurality of tooling bits 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 1;
“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 1;
“said 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;
“the 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;
“said 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; and
“said 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 13.
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 8 of the claim, “tooling bits of said” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 15 of the claim, “said” should be inserted before “respective bit support”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: On lines 3-4 of the claim, “of a tooling bit” should be changed to “for each tooling bit”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3 of the claim, “of a tooling bit” should be changed to “for each tooling bit”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 4 of the claim, “a folded position” should be changed to “[[a]] said folded position”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3 of the claim, “plurality of” should be inserted before “tooling bits”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 5 of the claim, “and” should be inserted after “bit support;”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 6 of the claim, “a corresponding tooling bit” should be changed to “[[a]] the corresponding tooling bit”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 10 of the claim, “respective” should be inserted before “bit support”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5-7, 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).
Please be advised that Ebeling and Hajdukiewicz were each previously cited by Examiner on the PTO-892 that mailed on 12/23/2025.
Claim 1: Figure 6 of Ebeling shows a fixing system (210) for fixing a tooling bit (20+22) to a tool (12) having an axis of rotation (76) about which said tooling bit (20+22) is set in rotation.
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 tooling 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 tooling bit (20+22).
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 one respective bit (20+22) of a plurality of tooling bits (20+22), each tooling bit (20+22) having a corresponding first working end (22) and a corresponding second end (20). Thus, the modified fixing system (210) is for fixing a tooling bit (20+22), chosen among the plurality of tooling bits (20+22), to the tool (12) having the axis of rotation (76) about which said tooling bit (20+22) is set in rotation.
Next, Ebeling further discloses reversible securing elements (82, 84, 86) to reversibly secure each tooling bit (20+22) of said plurality of tooling bits (20+22) to said bit holder (14) [paragraphs 0034-0036]. Note that the reversible securing elements (82, 84, 86) comprise each of a locking element (84), an expander element (82), and an activation element (86). Further discussion of these elements (82, 84, 86) will be provided later in this rejection of claim 1.
Next, each corresponding one of the plurality of tooling bits (20+22) is able to assume at least two states with respect 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 corresponding tooling bit (20+22) is engaged and locked on said bit holder (14) by said reversible securing elements (82, 84, 86) and is at a distance from said bit support (232+234+282). With regards to the released state, it is shown within Figure 9 of Ebeling, and corresponds to a state wherein said corresponding bit (20+22) is at a distance from the bit holder (14) and rests on said respective bit support (232+234+282).
Each corresponding one of the plurality of tooling bits (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) supporting the corresponding tooling bit (20+22) so that said bit holder (14) is secured to said corresponding tooling bit (20+22). 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) supporting the corresponding tooling bit (20+22), so that the corresponding bit (20+22) supported by the bit support (232+234+282) is locked on said bit holder (14). This will now be explained. 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 of Ebeling (in the phantom position) so that the tooling bit (20+22) is locked on said bit holder (14) as in Figure 8 [paragraph 0042].
As was stated above, said reversible securing elements (82, 84, 86) comprise the locking element (84), the expander element (82), and the activation element (86).
Please be advised that line 27 of claim 1 sets forth therein, “a locking element.” Noting this, “a locking element” is being interpreted by Examiner 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. Be advised that said “locking element” is interpreted as comprising the structure disclosed on page 8, lines 27-28 of Applicant’s specification filed on 12/21/2022, 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, please be advised that line 29 of claim 1 sets forth therein, “locking means.” Noting this, “locking means” is being interpreted by Examiner under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Be advised that said “locking means” is interpreted as comprising the structure disclosed on page 8, lines 28-30 of Applicant’s specification filed on 12/21/2022, 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) of said corresponding tooling bit (20+22), and a folded position (please see Figure 9) wherein it (82) does not act on said locking element (84) (as in Figure 9).
Please be advised that line 36 of claim 1 sets forth therein, “an activation element.” Noting this, “an activation element” is being interpreted by Examiner 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. Be advised that said “activation element” is interpreted as comprising the structure disclosed on page 9, lines 15-19 of Applicant’s specification filed on 12/21/2022, 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 36 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 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 this, 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). Please be advised that switching from said released state to said locked state for each tooling bit (20+22) of the plurality of tooling bits (20+22) is made by the combination of the first movement and the second movement.
Regarding the first movement, it is the translation of said bit holder (14) along the axis of rotation (76) towards said bit support (232+234+282) supporting the corresponding tooling bit (20+22). Regarding the second movement, it is the translation in the aforesaid plane by said bit holder (14) carrying with it (14) said bit support (232+234+282) supporting the corresponding tooling bit (20+22) so as that said bit holder (14) faces said bit support (232+234+282) and so that the corresponding tooling bit (20+22) is engaged and locked on the bit holder (14).
Claim 3: Regarding the bit holder (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]. Please be advised that switching from said released state to said locked state for each tooling bit (20+22) of the plurality of tooling bits (20+22) is made by the combination of the first movement and the second movement.
Regarding the first movement, it is the translation of said bit holder (14) along the axis of rotation (76) towards said bit support (232+234+282) supporting the corresponding tooling bit (20+22). Regarding the second movement, it is the 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) said bit support (232+234+282) supporting the corresponding tooling bit (20+22) so as that said bit holder (14) faces said bit support (232+234+282) and so that the corresponding tooling bit (20+22) is engaged and locked on the bit holder (14).
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 the 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) of said corresponding tooling bit (20+22). 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 of Koizumi (U.S. Patent No. 10,661,403 B2).
Please be advised that Koizumi was previously cited by Examiner on the PTO-892 that mailed on 12/23/2025.
Claim 10: Ebeling does not provide disclosure on each of the plurality of bit supports (232+234+282) further comprising, “at least one respective sensor belonging to the group consisting of: a sensor for presence of the respective tooling bit of the plurality of tooling bits in contact with the associated bit support; [and] a sensor for detecting position of a corresponding tooling bit of the plurality of tooling bits relative to a bit holder.”
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 the respective 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) of Ebeling as to whether there is presence of the respective tooling bit (20+22) in contact with the associated bit support (232+234+282), thereby detecting whether or not the tooling bit (12) is being held by the associated bit support (232+234+282).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1 and Ebeling, Applicant argues the following:
According to EBELING, the alleged reversible securing elements, which can assume a locked state and a released state, enable the bit holder 20-which itself carries a bit 22-to be secured to the tool. Conversely, according to claim 1, the reversible securing elements enable a bit 3 to be secured to the bit holder 4.
This difference means that, according to EBELING, each bit 22 is fixed to its own bit holder 20, whereas, according to Applicant's claim 1, each bit holder 4, which is fixed to a tool, can be used to attach various bits 3 to that tool.
Thus, according to EBELING, if one wishes to attach a plurality of bits 22 to a single tool, it will be necessary to use as many bit holders 20 as the number of bits among the plurality of bits. Conversely, according to Applicant's claim 1, if one wishes to attach a plurality of bits 3 to a single tool, it will be necessary to use a single bit holder 4.
Having a single bit holder greatly simplifies the design, particularly in the case of a socket set containing a large number of sockets.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive. Please be advised that in the rejection of claim 1, Examiner explained that the fixing system (210) of Ebeling comprises a bit holder (14) (please see Figure 6 of Ebeling) having a (proximal) first end able to be secured to one end of a tool (12) and a (distal) second end configured to be secured to a second end (20) of the tooling bit (20+22). In the above argument, Applicant appears to have gotten some elements mixed up, as Applicant’s argument is directed to element 20 of Ebeling being the “bit holder.” This is incorrect. Again, in Ebeling, element 14 is the “bit holder.” Therefore, in Ebeling, like in Applicant’s invention, there is indeed a single bit holder (14).
As can be seen above, Applicant argues that, “Having a single bit holder greatly simplifies the design, particularly in the case of a socket set containing a large number of sockets.” Noting this, in Ebeling, there is indeed a single bit holder (14), and it is element 14. Please be advised that in Ebeling, element 20 is the second end of the tooling bit (20+22). Based on the foregoing, Applicant’s argument is not found to be persuasive.
With respect to claim 1 and Ebeling/Hajdukiewicz, Applicant argues the following:
The Office Action suggests that the balls 84, the sleeve 82 and the biasing members 86 of EBELING correspond to the claimed locking, expander and activation elements. As mentioned above, EBELING does not incorporate reversible securing elements for securing the bit holder 20 to the bit 22. Conversely, EBELING incorporates the alleged reversible securing elements for securing the bit holder 20 to the tool.
Furthermore, HAJDUKIEWICZ does not discloses implementation of reversible securing elements comprising a locking element arranged in the bit holder, an expander element and an activation element carried by the bit holder. Conversely, the structure of HAJDUKIEWICZ is different. For example, driver element 80 and crank lever 82 are not carried by the bit holder but by the alleged bit support 20 (storage port).
The reversible securing elements as claimed in claim 1 are simpler and more reliable than the structure disclosed by HAJDUKIEWICZ.
Consequently, amended claim 1 is not only novel over EBELING and HAJDUKIEWICZ, it also is non-obvious over EBELING and HAJDUKIEWICZ.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive. Please be advised that in the rejection of claim 1, Examiner explained that the fixing system (210) of Ebeling comprises a bit holder (14) (please see Figure 6 of Ebeling) having a (proximal) first end able to be secured to one end of a tool (12) and a (distal) second end configured to be secured to a second end (20) of the tooling bit (20+22). In the above argument, Applicant appears to have gotten some elements mixed up, as Applicant’s argument is directed to element 20 of Ebeling being the “bit holder.” This is incorrect. Again, in Ebeling, element 14 is the “bit holder.”
Noting this, as it pertains to the reversible securing elements (82, 84, 86), they comprise each of a locking element (84), an expander element (82), and an activation element (86). In use, these reversible securing elements (82, 84, 86) provide for reversibly securing each tooling bit (20+22) to said bit holder (14) [Ebeling paragraphs 0034-0036]. Please be advised that Examiner never suggested that in Ebeling that the reversible securing elements (82, 84, 86) thereof provide for securing element 20 to element 22 like Applicant argues with, “EBELING does not incorporate reversible securing elements for securing the bit holder 20 to the bit 22.”
Again, Applicant appears to have gotten some elements mixed up, as Applicant’s argument is directed to element 20 of Ebeling being the “bit holder.” This is incorrect. Rather, in Ebeling, element 14 is the “bit holder.”
Noting the above, 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. Thus, in this way, the locking element (82) is “arranged in said bit holder [14].”
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). Also, in Ebeling, the body (80) (please see Figures 8-9) corresponds in structure to the “locking means” of Applicant, as 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. Thus, all limitations concerning the “locking element” of claim 1 are read on by Ebeling.
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) of said corresponding tooling bit (20+22), and a folded position (please see Figure 9) wherein it (82) does not act on said locking element (84) (as in Figure 9). Thus, all limitations concerning the “expander element” of claim 1 are read on by Ebeling.
Lastly, in Ebeling, Figures 8 and 9 show the activation element (86). 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). (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 36 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. Noting again that said activation element (86) is secured to the expander element (82) and is arranged on the periphery of the bit holder (14), all limitations concerning the “activation element” of claim 1 are read on by Ebeling.
Please be advised that Examiner did not rely upon Hajdukiewicz for teaching the implementation of the reversible securing elements (82, 84, 86). Based on the foregoing, Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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