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 .
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.
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: clamping element in claim 1; adjustment element in claims 6 and 13-15; resetting element in claims 8 and 16; and tensioning element in claim 17.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3, 6, 9 and 16 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.
Claims 3 and 6 lack adequate disclosure in the specification at the time of filing for what constitutes a prime mover. As such, it is not clear that the inventor had possession of the invention at the time of filing. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 9 recites “the cutting inserts are detachable from the toolholder without use of a mechanical tool.” This recitation contains new matter. The limitation of “without use of a mechanical tool” is not supported by the specification at the time of filing. As disclosed, the detachment of the inserts requires the use of a mechanical tool. Appropriate correction.
Claim 16 recites “each clamping element comprises a resetting element associated with the corresponding clamping element that biases the associated clamping element to the opened position or the closed position.” It is new matter that the resetting element biases a corresponding clamping element to the opened position. Appropriate correction required.
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 1-17 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.
Claim 1 recites “at least one of the cutting inserts is positionable in a respective one of the plurality of receptacles” in Lines 3-4. It is unclear whether the at least one of the cutting inserts refers back to one of the plurality or a different set of inserts. Furthermore, it is unclear whether more than one of the cutting inserts is capable of being positioned within one of the plurality of receptacles. Given that the claim later references cutting inserts in the receptacles, it is unclear what scope is being captured by recitation of “at least one.” Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “a respective one of the receptacles” in Lines 6-7. Antecedent basis has already been set forth for this limitation. As such, it is unclear whether this recitation is the same as previously recited or a different limitation. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the cutting inserts in the receptacles” in Lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, the claim only requires one or more to be positionable in the receptacles. Here, the claim puts the cutting inserts (presumably of the plurality) in the receptacles (presumably of the plurality). Appropriate correction required.
Claim 3 recites “a prime mover” in Lines 3-4. It is unclear what constitutes a prime mover. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 6 recites “a prime mover” in Lines 2-3. It is unclear what constitutes a prime mover. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 9 recites “the cutting inserts are detachable from the toolholder without use of a mechanical tool.” The metes and bounds of “without use of a mechanical tool” are not clearly delineated such that one of ordinary skill would understand the scope of the claim. In particular, it is unclear at what point the detachment is considered “without a mechanical tool” and at what point it is not. It is curious because a tool is required to actuate the adjustment element, which actuates the clamping element between open and closed positions. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 12 recites “at least one cutting insert” in Lines 1-2. Antecedent basis for this limitation has previously been set forth. Furthermore, a plurality of cutting inserts has been set forth. It is unclear whether this recitation refers back to the previously recited at least one cutting insert, the plurality, or a different at least one cutting insert. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 16 recites “each clamping element comprises a resetting element associated with the corresponding clamping element that biases the associated clamping element to the opened position or the closed position.” The clamping element, interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), does not include a resetting element. The resetting element is part of a clamping mechanism to which the clamping element also belongs. Yet, the resetting element is not part of the clamping element. It is also unclear what is meant by each clamping element including the resetting element associated with the corresponding clamping element that biases the clamping element. The limitation is vague and convoluted. Appropriate correction required.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 1124730 A.
(Claim 1) GB 1124730 A (‘730) discloses a toolholder (Figs. 1, 2) with a body (1, 2) having a plurality of receptacles (Page 2, Lines 33-38; Fig. 2), and a plurality of cutting inserts, at least one of the cutting inserts is positionable in a respective one of the plurality of receptacles (Figs. 1, 2). A plurality of clamping elements (8, 11), each of the clamping elements (8, 11) being associated with a respective one of the receptacles and being associated with a respective hydraulic channel (Fig. 1, Page 2, Lines 61-89; channel including 11-13) of a plurality hydraulic channels of a hydraulic system such that each clamping element (8, 11) is hydraulically (Page 1, Lines 82-83) adjustable between a closed position and an opened position via the hydraulic channel to which the clamping element is associated (Page 2, Lines 61-89). The toolholder is configured such that the clamping elements clamp the cutting inserts in the receptacles in the closed position for a cutting operation and thus fix the cutting inserts to the toolholder and release the cutting inserts in the opened position, such that the cutting inserts are detachable from the toolholder (Page 2, Lines 61-117). A filling opening of the hydraulic system on a front face of the body (1, 2), the filling opening being so that an annular reservoir of the hydraulic system is fillable via the filling opening, the annular reservoir being in fluid communication with the hydraulic channels (via removal of nut 4 and ring 5, Fig. 1; Page 2, Lines 19-32).
(Claim 2) The hydraulic channels are fluidly connected to one another (via chamber Fig. 1; Page 2, Lines 26-32).
(Claim 3) The filling opening is provided so as to oppose a prime mover connectable to the toolholder (via removal of nut 4 and ring 5, Fig. 1; Page 2, Lines 19-32).
(Claim 4) The toolholder has an adjustment element (4) by means of which the pressure of the hydraulic system adjustable (Page 2, Lines 61-117; Fig. 1).
(Claim 5) The adjustment element (4) is adjustable between a first position in which the clamping elements are in the opened position and a second position in which the clamping elements are in the closed position (Page 2, Lines 61-117; Figs. 1, 2).
(Claim 6) As best understood, the adjustment element (4) is arranged on a side of the toolholder that is provided so as to not oppose a prime mover attachable to the toolholder for the cutting operation (Fig. 1).
(Claim 7) The clamping elements (8, 11) are plungers, each of which is slidably supported in a cylinder recess (Page 2, Lines 38-117; Figs. 1, 2).
(Claim 8) The toolholder for each clamping element includes a resetting element (13) associated with the corresponding clamping element that biases the associated clamping element to the opened position or the closed position (Page 2, Lines 45-50).
(Claim 9) As best understood, the cutting inserts are detachable from the toolholder without use of a mechanical tool (Page 2, Lines 38-117; Figs. 1, 2).
(Claims 10 and 11) The toolholder of the ‘730 patent has the structure claimed. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” MPEP § 2113 (quoting In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
(Claim 12) The ‘730 disclosure includes a cutting tool having a toolholder according to claim 1 and at least one cutting insert (7; Figs. 1, 2; Page 2, Lines 33-38).
(Claim 13) The hydraulic system has an adjustment channel (channel for ring 5) and the toolholder includes an adjustment element (4, 5) that is moveable in an adjustment direction to increase or decrease a force with which the adjustment element presses on hydraulic fluid within the hydraulic system to change a pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the hydraulic system (Fig. 1; Page 2, Lines 71-117).
(Claim 14) The adjustment element (4, 5) is moveable in the adjustment direction to increase the force to adjust the clamping elements from the closed position to the open position (Fig. 1; Page 2, Lines 71-117).
(Claim 15) The adjustment element (4, 5) is moveable in the adjustment direction from a first position to a second position to decrease the force to simultaneously adjust all the clamping elements from the open position to the closed position (Fig. 1; Page 2, Lines 71-117).
(Claim 16) The toolholder for each clamping element includes a resetting element (13) associated with the corresponding clamping element that biases the associated clamping element to the opened position or the closed position (Figs. 1, 2; Page 2, Lines 45-50).
(Claim 17) Each of the clamping elements has an axial end that engages a notch in a tensioning element (Fig. 2).
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishikawa et al. (WO 2014/118977 A1).
(Claim 1) Nishikawa et al. (“Nishikawa”) discloses a toolholder (1; Figs. 1-9) with a body (2) having a plurality of receptacles (Figs. 4, 5), and a plurality of cutting inserts (3), at least one of the cutting inserts is positionable in a respective one of the plurality of receptacles (Figs. 1-5). A plurality of clamping elements (4), each of the clamping elements (4) being associated with a respective one of the receptacles and being associated with a respective hydraulic channel (Fig. 4) of a plurality hydraulic channels of a hydraulic system such that each clamping element is hydraulically (Translation) adjustable between a closed position and an opened position via the hydraulic channel to which the clamping element is associated (Figs. 4, 5). The toolholder is configured such that the clamping elements clamp the cutting inserts in the receptacles in the closed position for a cutting operation and thus fix the cutting inserts to the toolholder and release the cutting inserts in the opened position, such that the cutting inserts are detachable from the toolholder (Figs. 4, 5). A filling opening of the hydraulic system on a front face of the body (5), the filling opening being so that an annular reservoir (10) of the hydraulic system is fillable via the filling opening, the annular reservoir being in fluid communication with the hydraulic channels (Figs. 4, 5).
(Claim 13) The hydraulic system has an adjustment channel and the toolholder includes an adjustment element that is moveable in an adjustment direction to increase or decrease a force with which the adjustment element presses on hydraulic fluid within the hydraulic system to change a pressure of the hydraulic fluid within the hydraulic system (Figs. 4, 5).
(Claim 14) The adjustment element (Translation) is moveable in the adjustment direction to increase the force to adjust the clamping elements from the closed position to the open position (Figs. 4, 5).
(Claim 15) The adjustment element (Translation) is moveable in the adjustment direction from a first position to a second position to decrease the force to simultaneously adjust all the clamping elements from the open position to the closed position (Figs. 4, 5).
(Claim 16) The toolholder for each clamping element includes a resetting element (8) associated with the corresponding clamping element that biases the associated clamping element to the opened position or the closed position.
(Claim 17) Each of the clamping elements has an axial end that engages a notch in a tensioning element (Figs. 4, 5).
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 10 and 11 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 1124730 A in view of Semnisky et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0060665 A1).
While the ‘730 patent has the claimed structure, there isn’t explicit disclosure of 3D printing.
Semnisky et al. discloses the use of 3D printing of one or all components of a cutting tool (¶ 0036). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the toolholder disclosed in ‘730 via 3D printing as suggested by Semnisky et al. in order to “optimize the shape and distribution of material.” (¶ 0001).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the 112f interpretations and the written description rejection are erroneous. Turning to the prior art rejections, Applicant argues that the GB 1124730 reference fails to disclose the filling opening. Examiner disagrees.
One having ordinary skill in the art would not understand the scope of the structure for a clamping element or a resetting element. That is, the limitations lack inherent structure by the mention of their function. As such, the interpretations have been properly determined.
The arguments against the written description rejection fail to address the limitation for which the rejection was made.
Relative to the prior art rejection, the GB 1124730 reference discloses a filling opening (via removal of the nut and ring) that makes it possible to fill an annular reservoir of the system. Applicant merely alleges, in conclusory fashion, that the prior art fails to disclose the feature. The argument fails to set forth an error with any specificity. Thus, the rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Shevchenko (SU 1278119 A1).
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 RYAN RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, 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, Singh Sunil 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.
/RYAN RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722