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 species (i), (a first species of so-called “intelligent” tool holder shown in Figures 1-7), in the reply filed on October 30, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-6 and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 30, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
34 (described in paragraph 0037 of the specification as filed as a “depressurization module”); and
“section ‘A1-A1’ in Fig. 12A” (set forth in paragraph 0024 of the specification as filed; while it is noted that Figure 12A does include a section line A-A, Figure 12A does not include a section line A1-A1).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
the housing 500h (of the sensing reading device 500) that is (itself) “outwardly covered on the connecting portion of the tool-holder main body” as set forth in claim 10 (see Figures 1-4 and 7, as well as paragraph 0033, noting that the drawings do not show that the housing 500h of the sensing reading device 500 is outwardly covered by something (on the connecting portion 230 of the tool-holder main body 200); and
the ”depressurization module” set forth in claim 11.
No new matter should be entered.
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:
“connecting portion” in at least claim 1, lines 2, 8-9, and 11, and claim 10, lines 2 and 3;
“sensing element” (or “sensing elements”) in at least claim 1, lines 4, 12, 13, and claim 9, lines 1 and 3-4;
“sensing reading module” in at least claim 1, lines 9-10, and claim 11, lines 2 and 3;
“sensing system” in at least claim 10;
“control unit” (in the limitation “micro control unit”) in claim 11 (plural occurrences in claim 11);
“wireless transmission module” in claim 11;
“external monitoring device” in claim 11;
“depressurization module” in claim 11; and
“power supply module” in claim 11.
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.
However, it is noted that the term “sensing elements” in claim 7 does not invoke 35 USC 112(f), given that the claim recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function(s).
However, it is also noted that the term “sensing system” in claim 11 does not invoke 35 USC 112(f), given that the claim recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function(s).
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 13, the claim sets forth “wherein the counterweight element comprises be a screw”, which does not appear to be grammatically correct (due to the use of the verbiage “comprises be”).
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, 7, and 9-13 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.
The term “intelligent” in the preamble of each of claims 1, 7, and 9-13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “intelligent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, it is unclear how “intelligent” a given tool holder must be in order to be considered to meet the limitation, and it is unclear how “unintelligent” a given tool holder must be in order to be excluded by the term. It is additionally unclear what characteristic(s) or structure(s) a given tool holder must have in order to meet the term “intelligent” tool holder.
In claim 1¸lines 2-3, the claim sets forth “a tool-holder main body comprising a connecting portion which is utilized to connect a processing tool”. However, it appears that this limitation is missing some verbiage, e.g., a tool-holder main body comprising a connecting portion which is utilized to connect a processing tool to what? Or, e.g., a tool-holder main body comprising a connecting portion which is utilized to connect to a processing tool?
Claim limitation “connecting portion” (in at least claim 1, lines 2, 8-9, and 11, and claim 10, lines 2 and 3) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, while the specification utilizes the reference character 230 to refer to the “connecting portion”, there is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, as the “connecting portion”. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to effect the function of connecting a tool. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structures perform(s) the claimed function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
In claim 1, lines 2-4, the claim recites “a tool-holder main body comprising a connecting portion which is utilized to connect a processing tool and provided with a plurality of embedded holes respectively embedded with a sensing element therein”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “provided with a plurality of embedded holes respectively embedded with a sensing element therein”, e.g., “the tool-holder main body”, or “the connecting portion”.
In claim 1, the claim recites “a plurality of embedded holes respectively embedded with a sensing element therein to kinetically detect sensed data including stress and strain of the tool-holder main body which are correspondingly formed as being loaded from the processing tool”. However, it is unclear as claimed how or in what regard the act of detecting sensed data is to be considered to be “kinetic”. For example, it is unclear as claimed whether (in order for the act of detecting to be considered to be “kinetic”) the act of detecting must occur during movement of something, and if so, what? Alternatively, it is unclear as claimed whether (in order for the act of detecting to be considered to be “kinetic”) the act of detecting must be a detection of something that is moving, and if so, what?
In claim 1, the claim recites “a plurality of embedded holes respectively embedded with a sensing element therein to kinetically detect sensed data including stress and strain of the tool-holder main body which are correspondingly formed as being loaded from the processing tool”. However, it is unclear as claimed to what “which” is intended to refer in the limitation “which are correspondingly formed as being loaded from the processing tool”, e.g., the tool holder main body, the plurality of embedded holes, the stress and strain, etc. It is additionally unclear whether “from the processing tool” is intended to refer to some form of direction or location of the loading, as in “loaded at a location at the processing tool”, or “loaded in a direction that extends from the processing tool”, for example. Alternatively, it is unclear whether “from the processing tool” is instead intended to mean –via the processing tool--, as in loading that occurs via the processing tool or loading that is applied to the processing tool.
In claim 1, lines 8-13, the claim sets forth “a sensing reading device comprising a housing to outwardly cover the connecting portion of the tool-holder main body, and a sensing reading module being disposed in a space located between the housing of the sensing reading device and the connecting portion of the tool-holder main body and connected to each sensing element to read the sensed data of the sensing element transmitted therefrom”. However, it is unclear as claimed to what/where “therefrom” is intended to refer, i.e., from what/where?
There are several positively recited limitations that lack sufficient antecedent bases in the claims. Examples of this are:
“the sensing element” in claim 1, last line (noting that plural sensing elements were previously recited in the claim such that it is unclear which specific sensing element constitutes “the sensing element”);
“the counterweight element” in claim 13 (noting that plural counterweight elements were previously recited, such that it is unclear which specific counterweight element is intended to be referenced); and
“the assembly hole” in claim 13 (noting that plural assembly holes were previously recited, such that it is unclear which specific assembly hole is intended to be referenced).
This is not meant to be an all-inclusive list of such occurrences. Applicant is required to review the claims and correct any other such occurrences of limitations lacking sufficient antecedent basis.
In claim 9, in the limitation “two symmetrically-configured embedded sensing elements”, it is unclear as claimed whether such is intended to refer to a subset of the previously-recited “sensing elements”, or whether such is instead intended to be additional to the previously-recited “sensing elements”. Additionally, in the limitation “two symmetrically-configured embedded sensing elements”, it is unclear as claimed whether “symmetrically-configured” is intended to refer to a layout of the two embedded sensing elements (i.e., two embedded sensing elements that are symmetrically laid out with respect to some unspecified-in-the-claim frame of reference), vs. whether such is instead intended to refer to a configuration of each of the individual two sensing elements (i.e., two embedded sensing elements that each have a respective symmetrical configuration/shape).
In claim 9, the claim sets forth “wherein the sensing elements are utilized to perform a stratified detection to a bending-moment loading and a torque loading of the processing tool, and two symmetrically-configured embedded sensing elements are utilized to detect each moment and each torque respectively”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what effect the term “respectively” in this instance is intended to have on the scope of the claim, and as such, it is unclear how many (and what functions they carry out) “two symmetrically-configured embedded sensing elements” are required in order to meet the claim, e.g., two such sensors, total, each of which detects both moment and torque; four such sensors, two of which detect moment, two of which detect torque; etc.
The term “micro” in claim 11 (plural occurrences re the limitation “micro control unit”) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “micro” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how small a given control unit must be in order to be considered to be a “micro” control unit, and it is unclear how large a given control unit must be in order to be excluded by the term “micro”.
Claim limitation “control unit” (in claim 11, plural occurrences in the claim, in the limitations “micro control unit”) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, while the specification utilizes the reference character 520 to refer to the “micro control unit”, and describes functions thereof, there is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, as the “micro control unit”. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to effect the function of controlling and of “perform[ing] a signal process to the sensed data read by the sensing reading module” (as set forth in claim 11). . The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structures perform(s) the claimed function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim limitation “wireless transmission module” (in claim 11) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, while the specification utilizes the reference character 530 to refer to the “wireless transmission module”, and describes functions thereof, there is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, as the “wireless transmission module”. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to effect the function of “encrypt[ing] and send[ing] the signal processed by the micro control unit to an external monitoring device” (as set forth in claim 11). . The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structures perform(s) the claimed function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim limitation “external monitoring device” (in claim 11) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, while the specification utilizes the reference character 600 to refer to the “external monitoring device”, and describes functions thereof, there is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, as the “external monitoring device”. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to effect the function of monitoring and of receiving a signal processed by the micro control unit (as set forth in claim 11). The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structures perform(s) the claimed function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim limitation “depressurization module” (in claim 11) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely teaches that the depressurization module “34” (which does not appear to be shown) is “bonded to the inner wall of the housing 500h of the sensing reading device 500 by adhesives”. See paragraph 0037 of the specification as originally filed, and particularly, page 10, lines 17-20 of the specification as filed. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to effect the function of “depressurization”. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structures perform(s) the claimed function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
In claim 12, the claim recites “wherein the counterweight ring having an outer periphery annularly and equidistantly provided with the assembly holes”. However, it appears that this claim language is missing some verbiage. For example, “wherein the counterweight ring having an outer periphery annularly and equidistantly provided with the assembly holes” does what? Alternatively, it is unclear as claimed whether such is intended to recite “wherein the counterweight ring” has “an outer periphery annularly and equidistantly provided with the assembly holes”.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 (at least lines 2, 8-9, and 11), and claim 10 (lines 2 and 3) and the recited “connecting portion which is utilized to connect a processing tool”, as discussed above, this limitation invokes 35 USC 112(f). As described above in a rejection of claims 1 and 10 under 35 USC 112(b), the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of “connecting a processing tool”. That said, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 10, the claim depends from claim 1 and further sets forth that “the housing is outwardly covered on the connecting portion of the tool-holder main body”. However, the specification does not appear to teach such in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof. See, for example, Figures 1-4 and 7. See also paragraph 0033, which teaches that the housing 500h (of the sensing reading device 500) “is utilized to cover the connecting portion 230 of the tool-holder main body 200”, rather than teaching that the housing 500h is itself outwardly covered (i.e., by something else) on the connecting portion 230 of the tool-holder main body 200 as set forth in claim 10.
Regarding claim 11 (plural occurrences in claim 11) and the recited “micro control unit”, as discussed above, this limitation invokes 35 USC 112(f). As described above in a rejection of claim 11 under 35 USC 112(b), the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of “controlling” and “perform[ing] a signal process to the sensed data read by the sensing reading module”. That said, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11 (plural occurrences in claim 11) and the recited “wireless transmission module”, as discussed above, this limitation invokes 35 USC 112(f). As described above in a rejection of claim 11 under 35 USC 112(b), the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of “encrypt[ing] and send[ing] the signal processed by the micro control unit to an external monitoring device”. That said, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11 and the recited “external monitoring device”, as discussed above, this limitation invokes 35 USC 112(f). As described above in a rejection of claim 11 under 35 USC 112(b), the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of “monitoring” and receiving a signal processed by the micro control unit. That said, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11 and the recited “depressurization module”, as discussed above, this limitation invokes 35 USC 112(f). As described above in a rejection of claim 11 under 35 USC 112(b), the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of “depressurization”. That said, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. It is additionally noted that it is further unclear what is being “depressurized”, as there is no disclosure regarding anything being “pressurized”.
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, 9-10, and 12-13, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 104139322 A (hereinafter, “CN ‘322”).
It is noted that a machine translation of CN ‘322 is being made of record on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) accompanying this Office Action. That said, attention is directed to that machine translation regarding any references herein to page numbers, line numbers, paragraph numbers, or the like, re CN ‘322.
CN ‘322 teaches an intelligent tool holder (see title; see also paragraph 0009), comprising:
a tool-holder main body (1) comprising a connecting portion (see Figures 1-6, the portion of 1 on which ring 7 is provided) which is utilized to connect a processing tool (such as at the bottom of 1 by a shank of the milling bit being received in the center bore of 1; see Figure 6 and paragraphs 0009 and 0025-0026, for example) and provided with a plurality of embedded holes (each having surfaces at 4, 5; see Fig. 3, for example; see also at least Figures 2 and 4-6, as well as paragraphs 0026-0031, and 0015-0021, noting that Figure 4 is a view along line A-A of Figure 2, noting that Figure 5 is a view along line B-B of Figure 1, and Figure 6 is a view along line C-C of Figure 5, and that respective sensor C1, C2, C3, or C4, for example, is located in each of the four embedded holes, which holes each have a set of surfaces 4, 5) respectively embedded with a sensing element (11 and/or 17; additionally/alternatively C1-C4; additionally/alternatively note that C1 and C3 are located in respective ones of the holes and constitute a “plurality” of sensors; additionally, sensors C5, C6 of 17 are located in the same embedded hole as sensors C1, C3, respectively, as shown in Figure 4, for example) therein to kinetically (e.g., in real-time; see at least paragraph 0009) detect sensed data including stress and strain of the tool-holder main body (1) which are correspondingly formed as being loaded from the processing tool (see paragraphs 0009, 0025-0031 and 0033, noting the teachings of detecting force, torque, deformation); and
a sensing reading device comprising a housing (7 and/or the radially outermost wall thereof) to outwardly cover the (aforedescribed) connecting portion of the tool-holder main body (1), and a sensing reading module (13 and/or 14; see at least paragraphs 0022, 0025, 0032) being disposed in a space located between the (radially outermost wall of the) housing of the sensing reading device (13 and/or 14) and the (aforedescribed) connecting portion of the tool-holder main body (1) (see Figures 5 and 6 and paragraphs 0022, 0025, 0032) and connected to each (aforedescribed) sensing element to read the sensed data of the sensing element transmitted therefrom (paragraphs 0022, 0025, 0027-0032, for example)
Regarding claim 9, the (aforedescribed) sensing elements are utilized to perform a “stratified” (noting that the various sensing elements 11/C1-C4, 17/C5-C6 are spaced from one another such that the detection occurs at different locations/“levels”/“strata”; see Figures 4-6, for example, as well as Figure 7) detection “to” a bending-moment loading (via the sensors 11/C1, C2, C3, C4) and a torque loading (via 17/C5, C6) of the processing tool (see at least paragraphs 0012-0013, 0026-0031 and 0033), and two symmetrically-configured (see Figures 4-6, particularly Figure 4, as well as paragraph 0027 which expressly teaches that C1 and C3 are symmetrically arranged, as are C2 and C4, as are C5 and C6) embedded sensing elements (11/C1-C4, 17/C5-C6) are utilized to detect each moment and each torque respectively (see at least paragraphs 0012-0013, 0026-0031 and 0033).
Regarding claim 10, CN ‘322 teaches that the (aforedescribed) housing (7 or the radially outermost wall thereof) is “outwardly” covered (such as via 8, for example, noting that 8 “covers” an “outer”/external surface of 7, such as the bottom surface of 7 re Figure 6) “on” the (aforedescribed) connecting portion of the tool-holder main body (1) (see Figure 6), a sensing system is surroundingly disposed between the housing (7 or the radially outermost wall thereof) and the (aforedescribed) connecting portion (on which 7 is located) of the tool-holder main body (1), a counterweight ring (labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 6 below as “R”) disposed on one side (upper side re Figure 6; see also Figure 1 and paragraphs 0022, 0032) of the housing is provided with a plurality of assembly holes (in which four set screws 6 are received; see Figures 1, 6, and paragraphs 0022 and 0032) utilized to assemble counterweight elements (the four set screws 6, as broadly claimed, noting that such set screws 6 are inherently capable of acting as counterweight elements, as broadly claimed, simply by such being provided as disclosed in paragraph 0032), and a bottom cap (8) “disposed in the direction of being distant from” the (aforedescribed) counterweight ring (R) (see Figure 6) is provided with at least one wireless transmission terminal (of the wireless transmission module 15; see paragraphs 0032-0033 and Figures 5 and 6, noting that the wireless transmission module inherently has some form of “wireless transmission terminal” as broadly claimed, or else it would not be a wireless transmission module, and further noting that CN 322 teaches that the wireless transmission module 15, and thus the wireless transmission terminal thereof, is provided in the cavity between 7 and 1, and thus in some capacity, 8 is “provided with” such wireless transmission terminal, as broadly claimed; see Figures 5-6 and paragraphs 0032-0033, as well as the translation of claims 1 and 4 of the CN ‘322).
[AltContent: textbox (“ring” R on top of (the rest of) 7)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
490
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, CN ‘322 teaches the (aforedescribed) counterweight ring (R) having an outer periphery annularly and equidistantly provided with the assembly holes (the four holes that receive the set screws 6; see Figures 1, 6, and paragraphs 0022 and 0032).
Regarding claim 13, CN ‘322 teaches that the counterweight element (6) “comprises be” a screw (paragraphs 0022, 0032) and the assembly hole (in which 6 are located) comprises a threaded hole (see Figures 1, 6, and paragraphs 0022 and 0032, noting that since 6 are set screws, the holes in which 6 are received are thus inherently threaded holes).
Claims 1, 7, and 9, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 111958320 A (hereinafter, “CN ‘320”).
It is noted that a machine translation of CN ‘320 is being made of record on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) accompanying this Office Action. That said, attention is directed to that machine translation regarding any references herein to page numbers, line numbers, paragraph numbers, or the like, re CN ‘320.
CN ‘320 teaches an intelligent (paragraph 0007) tool holder, comprising:
a tool-holder main body (1) (see Figures 1, 7, 9, and at least paragraphs 0063, 0067-0068) comprising a connecting portion (such as the portion labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 7 below as “CP”) which is utilized to (at least ultimately) connect a processing tool (see Figure 1 and at least paragraphs 0012 and 0074, for example; see also Figures 7 and 9) and provided with a plurality of embedded holes (11; see Figures 7 and 3, noting that such cavities 11 are also shown in Figure 3, a few of which are labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 3 below; see also paragraphs 0063 and 0068-0069, as well as paragraph 0077) respectively embedded with a sensing element (2, 3; see paragraphs 0067, 0069, 0075-0077, as well as at least Figures 7, 3, and 4; additionally, see paragraph 0023, which teaches that the crystal slots 11 are each encapsulated after the sensor/crystal is integrated therein) therein to kinetically (in real time; see title, as well as at least paragraphs 0010, 0012, 0066, for example) detect sensed data including stress and strain of the tool-holder main body (1) which are correspondingly formed as being loaded from the processing tool (see paragraphs 0002, 0010-0012, 0015, 0019, 0022, 0067-0069, 0072-0087, and 0089, particularly paragraphs 0083-0087 and 0089, for example); and
a sensing reading device comprising a housing (9; see Figures 7, 9, and at least paragraphs 0063 and 0073, for example) to outwardly (such as radially outwardly) cover the (aforedescribed) connecting portion (CP) of the tool-holder main body (1) (see Figures 7, 9, 1, and at least paragraph 0073, for example), and a sensing reading module (the information processing-acquisition-transmission arrangement that is provided in the information processing-acquisition-transmission integrated cavity 14, and/or the circuit system provided in the circuit system integrated cavity 16) being disposed in a space located between the housing (9) of the sensing reading device and the connecting portion (CP) of the tool-holder main body (1) (see Figures 7-9, particularly Figure 8, as well as at least paragraphs 0063, 0068, 0070-0071, 0073) and connected to each sensing element (of 2, 3) to read the sensed data of the sensing element transmitted therefrom (see, for example, Figure 1 and paragraphs 0089-0090, 0092-0093, for example).
[AltContent: textbox (CP)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
496
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (11)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image3.png
354
378
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, the sensing elements (2, 3, provided in 11) comprises piezoelectric sensors. See paragraphs 0063, 0067, and 0075-0077, for example.
Regarding claim 9, the sensing elements (2, 3, provided in 11) are utilized to perform a “stratified” (noting that the various sensing elements 2, 3, provided in the eight cavities 11 are spaced from one another such that the detection occurs at different locations/“levels”/“strata”; see Figures 3 and 7) detection to a bending-moment loading and a torque loading of the processing tool (see paragraphs 0075-0083; see also paragraphs 0019, 0022), and two symmetrically-configured embedded sensing elements are utilized to detect each moment and each torque respectively (additionally see Figures 3 and 7, noting that, for example, each embedded hole 11 and thus the sensor therein is symmetrically arranged with a diametrically opposed embedded hole 11/sensor).
Comment Regarding Non-Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
A thorough search has been conducted re the elected invention/claims. That being said, though no art rejections are considered to presently apply to claim 11, no indication regarding the allowability of the subject matter of elected claim 11 with respect to the prior art is being made at this time due to the rejection(s) thereof based on 35 USC 112(a), set forth above, particularly given that is unclear what changes to the claims might be necessary to overcome the above-described issues with respect to 35 USC 112(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA E CADUGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 5:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and via 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) 272-3460. 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.
/ERICA E CADUGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
eec
December 16, 2025