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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 3/3/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file. Please be advised that with respect to Foreign Patent Document Citation #2 (CN 106112637 A) while Applicant provided a copy thereof, the copy itself is illegible. Please be advised all of these figures thereof having extremely poor line quality and cannot be made out. As such, Foreign Patent Document Citation #2 (CN 106112637 A) has been lined through on the IDS filed on 3/3/2026.
Having said that, Examiner has considered the reference, and has cited it on the PTO-892 that is being mailed with this office action. In doing so, Examiner has provided a legible copy of the reference (CN 106112637 A) in which the drawings have better line quality and are thus able to be reviewed.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I (claims 1-5 and 8, drawn to an arm configured to grip a tool) in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 was previously acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 6 and 7 were previously withdrawn (and still are) from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking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 11/17/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 7 of the claim, “the rod portion extends” should be changed to “[[the]] each rod portion extending”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 10 of the claim, “from the other support rod” should be changed to “from one another”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 11 of the claim, “a tool-gripping end” should be changed to “[[a]] the tool-gripping end”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 11 of the claim, “two” should be inserted before “support rods”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 12 of the claim, “a tool-gripping end” should be changed to “[[a]] the tool-gripping end”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 12 of the claim, “the other support rod” should be changed to “the other one of the two support rods”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: On lines 2-3 of the claim, “one of the support rods” should be changed to “the one of the two support rods”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: On lines 2-3 of the claim, “the other support rod” should be changed to “the other one of the two support rods”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In each of lines 2 and 7 of the claim, “one of the support rods” should be changed to “the one of the two support rods”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 9 of the claim, “a tool” should be changed to “[[a]] the tool”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 10 of the claim, “the other support rod” should be changed to “the other one of the two support rods”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 16 of the claim, “the other support rods” should be changed to “the other one of the two support rods”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 19 of the claim, “a tool” should be changed to “[[a]] the tool”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 6 of the claim, “extending” should be inserted before “parallel”. 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 8 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 7-8 of claim 1 state, “a rotation center axis direction which is a direction of an axis of a rotation center of the tool magazine.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to what is meant by the rotation center axis direction “is a direction of an axis of a rotation center of the tool magazine.” Is this intended to mean, for example, that the rotation center axis direction extends parallel to a direction in which an axis of the rotation center of the tool magazine extends?
Lines 13-14 of claim 1 state, “the rotation center axis.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if “the rotation center axis” is intended to refer to the “rotation center axis direction” of lines 7-8, or to the “axis of the rotation enter” of line 8, or to something else altogether.
Lines 2-5 of claim 3 state that, “the rod portion of one of the support rods has: a first part…; and a first inclined part…” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because noting that claim 1 (on which claim 3 directly depends) set forth that “each support rod includes a rod portion having a tool-gripping end and a grip portion provided at a tool-gripping end,” it is unclear as to what the relationship is between the tool gripping end, the first part, and the first inclined part of the one of the support rods. Are the first part and the first inclined part elements of the tool-gripping end, for example?
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the same axial side" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Lines 10-13 of claim 3 state that, “the rod portion of the other support rod has: a second part…; and a second inclined part…” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because noting that claim 1 (on which claim 3 directly depends) set forth that “each support rod includes a rod portion having a tool-gripping end and a grip portion provided at a tool-gripping end,” it is unclear as to what the relationship is between the tool gripping end, the second part, and the second inclined part of the other support rod. Are the second part and the second inclined part elements of the tool-gripping end, for example?
Lines 15-16 of claim 8 state, “wherein the second surface of the second part is positioned farther from the first surface of the first part in the first axial direction.” First, this limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it appears to be incomplete, noting that Applicant appears only to make half of a comparison. This limitation is further viewed to vague and indefinite, because it unclear as to how or what way that the second surface “is positioned farther from the first surface of the first part in the first axial direction” when it was already established in lines 11-12 of claim 8 that the second surface faces the second axial direction, which is opposite the first axial direction. How can the position of the second surface with respect to first surface in the first axial direction even be established when the second surface doesn’t even face the first axial direction?
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, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japan Publication No. JP S63144928 A (hereinafter JP '928).
Please be advised that JP '928 was cited by Applicant on the IDS filed on 2/2/2023.
Please further be advised that an EPO Machine Translation, which was provided by Applicant on 2/2/2023, is relied upon below.
Claim 1: Figures 1, 3, and 7-9 of JP '928 show an arm (33) provided in a tool magazine (30) of a machine tool (100) and configured to grip a tool (T+TH).
As can best be seen in Figures 7-9 of JP '928, the arm (33) comprises a support plate (34) that is configured to be fixed to the tool magazine (30), and two support rods (45, 45). Next, each of the two support rods (45, 45) includes a respective rod portion having a corresponding tool-gripping end at which a grip portion is provided. Note that the two support rods (45, 45) will now be individually referred to as the one (45) of the two support rods (45, 45) and as the other one (45) of the two support rods (45, 45).
Regarding the one (45) of the two support rods (45, 45), it (45) has a rod portion extending in a direction perpendicular to a rotation center axis direction, which is a direction of an axis of rotation center (21) of the tool magazine (30). Likewise, the other one (45) of the two support rods (45, 45) has a rod portion extending in the direction perpendicular to the rotation center axis direction. Examiner has pointed to each rod portion below in annotated Figure 9. Please be advised that the rotation center axis direction and the axis of rotation center (21) of the tool magazine (30) extend into/out of the page from the perspective of annotated Figure 9. Also, please further be advised that each support rod (45, 45) is configured to rotate on an opposite lateral side of the support plate (34) from one another/“the other support rod”.
PNG
media_image1.png
607
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Next, please be advised that Examiner has annotated Figure 8 of JP '928 and provided it on the following page of this office action. As it pertains to the one (45) of the two support rods (45, 45) of JP '928, Examiner has pointed therein to not only its “rod portion,” but also to “a tool-gripping end” thereof and to “a grip portion [47a] provided at the tool-gripping end.” Please note that from the orientation of Figure 8 of JP '928 shown below, the tool-gripping end of the one (45) of the two supports (45, 45) is the lower part (emphasis added) of the rod portion encapsulated in dashed lines to which the corresponding grip portion (47a) is provided.
PNG
media_image2.png
694
960
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Next, please be advised that Examiner has again annotated Figure 8 and provided it on the following page of this office action. As it pertains to the other one (45) of the two support rods (45, 45), Examiner has pointed therein to not only its corresponding “rod portion,” but also to “a tool-gripping end” thereof and to “a grip portion [47b] provided at the tool-gripping end.” Note that the from the orientation of Figure 8 shown below, the tool-gripping end of the other one (45) of the two supports (45, 45) is the upper part (emphasis added) of the rod portion encapsulated in dashed lines to which the corresponding grip portion (47b) is provided. Please note that Examiner flipped this second version of Figure 8 so as try to convey that that the other one (45) of the two support rods (45, 45) is an opposing support rod to the one (45) of the two support rods (45, 45).
PNG
media_image3.png
678
963
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Be advised that for the one (45) of the two support rods (45, 45), the tool-gripping end thereof is positioned at a location different from the tool-gripping end of the other one (45) of the two support rods (45, 45) in a first axial direction, which extends parallel to the axis of rotation center (21) of the tool magazine (30)/rotation center axis. This can be seen when comparing the two different versions of annotated Figure 8 that were provided above by Examiner. This can additionally be seen on the following page in annotated Figure 3 of JP '928.
PNG
media_image4.png
630
999
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Examiner on the next page has provided each of the two versions of annotated Figure 8 of JP '928. In comparing the two figures, it can be seen that the tool-gripping end of the one (45) of the two support rods (45, 45) and the tool-gripping end of the other one (45) of the two support rods (45, 45) are separated from each other in the first axial direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
694
960
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
678
963
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 8: Figures 1, 3, and 7-9 of JP '928 show an arm (33) configured to grip a tool (T+TH). Noting this, Figures 1, 3, and 7-9 of JP '928 show the arm (33) comprising a support plate (34) that is configured to be fixed to a tool magazine (30) of a machine tool (100). Next, as can be seen below in annotated Figure 7, the support plate (34) has an arc shape portion (37, 38) at one end of the support plate (34) in a first direction.
PNG
media_image5.png
745
642
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Next, as can be seen above in annotated Figure 7, the arm (33) further comprises each of a first support rod (45) rotatably disposed on one lateral side of the support plate (34) in a second direction, and a second support rod (45) rotatably disposed on an opposite lateral side of the support plate (34) in the second direction.
Next, please be advised that Examiner has annotated Figure 8 of JP '928 and provided it below. As it pertains to the first support rod (45) of JP '928, it can be seen therein that it has a first part (45a), the first part (45a) having a first surface (47a) facing a first axial direction, which extends parallel to a rotation center axis (21) of the tool magazine (30).
PNG
media_image6.png
651
965
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Next, please be advised that Examiner has again annotated Figure 8 of JP '928 and provided on the next page. As it pertains to the second support rod (45) of JP '928, it can be seen therein that it has a second part (45a), the second part (45a) having a second surface (47b) facing a second axial direction, which is disposed opposite the first axial direction. Please note that Examiner flipped this second version of Figure 8 so as try to convey that that the second support rod (45) is an opposing support rod to the first support rod (45).
PNG
media_image7.png
618
971
media_image7.png
Greyscale
When comparing the two different versions of annotated Figure 8 of JP '928 that were provided above by Examiner, it can be seen therein that the arc shape portion (37, 38) of the support plate (34) is positioned between the first part and the second part in the second direction.
Lastly, the second surface (47b) of the second part (45a) is positioned farther from the first surface (47a) of the first part (45a) in the first axial direction. This is because, for example, the second surface (47b) is disposed at an upper portion of the second part (45a), rather than be disposed at an lower portion of the first part (45a) like the first surface (47a) is. Additionally/ Alternatively, the second surface (47b) of the second part (45a) is positioned farther from the first surface (47a) of the first part (45a) in the first axial direction as compared to, for example, a presser piece (47a) of the second part (45a) of the second rod (45). This is because unlike the second surface (47b) of the second part (45a), the first surface (47a) of the first part (45a) of the first support rod (45) and the presser piece (47a) of the second part (45a) of the second rod (45) are at the same position in a direction of the rotation center axis (21) of the tool magazine (30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 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
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