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 .
Statement re Text of U.S. Code
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10, 11, and 13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election (of Group I, drawn to a “bit retainer”, and the ninth species including the bit retainer depicted in Figures 16-18) was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 5, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 19 is 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.
In claim 19, the claim sets forth “wherein the collet is an ER-20 collet”. It is unclear as claimed what specific configuration(s) of collet such is intended to encompass vs. what specific configuration(s) of collet such is intended to exclude.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-3, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 5,405,220 to Ishikawa (hereinafter, “Ishikawa”).
Ishikawa teaches a bit retainer configured to couple a tool bit (28; see, for example, Figure 1 and at least col. 3, lines 4-18, for example) to an output spindle of a power tool (see col. 3, lines 4-7, and col. 4, lines 37-45, for example), the bit retainer comprising:
a body (1) coupled (via 1g) for co-rotation with the output spindle about a rotational axis (see Figure 1 and col. 3, lines 4-18, as well as at least col. 4, lines 37-45, for example), the body (1) including a bore (2) configured to (i.e., capable of) interchangeably (i.e., able to be interchanged) receive a selected collet (such as collet 9) of a plurality of collets, each collet of the plurality of collets having a different geometry (it is noted that claim 1 no longer expressly requires a collet to be met, and further, does not require a plurality of collets, and does not even require that the bore be capable of interchangeably receiving plural collets that each have different geometries, but rather, claim 1 is directed to a bit retainer, i.e., rather than being directed to a kit including a bit retainer and a plurality of collets or the like; furthermore, it is noted that claim 1 merely requires that the bore be capable of interchangeably receiving a collet, or at most, capable of interchangeably receiving a collet that was at some point in time “selected” from a plurality of collets of differing geometries; that said, the collet 9 was inherently chosen or selected at some point in time from a plurality of all of the collets in existence in the world, including ones that have different geometries than that of collet 9, or else the collet 9 would not be present in the disclosure of Ishikawa; furthermore, the collet 9 is considered to be inherently “interchangeable”, i.e., able to be interchanged, with a different collet, such as one of identical geometry to that of claim 9, and such as a collet of a second different geometry, such as with a different bore size to receive a tool bit of a slightly different diameter, for example, simply by reversing the assembly process shown in Figures 4A-4C and described in at least col. 4, lines 6-42, removing the first collet, and replacing it with such a collet of a second “geometry”)
a wedge surface (such as either of 2 or 26) engageable with the “selected” collet (9) when the “selected” collet (9) is received in the bore (2) of the body (1) (see Figures 1-4C, noting that surface 2 engages with the collet 9, and also noting that surface 26 of 22 engages with surface 26 of the collet 9; see also col. 3, lines 19-23 and col. 4, lines 12-25, for example); and
a sleeve (21) surrounding the body (1) (see Figures 1-2), wherein the sleeve (21) is movable (via rotation, and also axial translation in the horizontal left/right direction re Figure 1; see Figures 1-2 and col. 3, line 62 through col. 4, line 40, for example) relative to the body (1) to engage the wedge surface (either of 2 or 26) against the “selected” collet (9) and compress a plurality of jaws (of the collet 9, i.e., the jaws/fingers/collet portions located between the slits 14) of the “selected” collet (9) around the tool bit (28). (See Figures 1-4C, and especially Figures 1-2. See also col. 3, line 19 through col. 4, line 42, and particularly, col. 4, lines 25-42, for example.)
Regarding claim 2, the wedge surface (2) is formed within the body (1), and the sleeve (21) is movable to translate the “selected” collet (9) along the wedge surface (2). See Figures 1-2 and at least col. 3, line 62 through col. 4, line 42, and particularly col. 3, lines 62-68, for example.
Regarding claim 3, (which depends from claim 1), Ishikawa teaches a cap (22) coupled (via intervening structure) to the body (1). Additionally, the wedge surface (26) is formed on the cap (22). Additionally, the sleeve (21) is movable to translate the cap (22) relative to the body (1). See Figures 1-2 and 4A-4C, as well as col. 3, line 62 through col. 4, line 42, for example.
Regarding claim 9, the sleeve (21) is rotatable relative to the body (1) about the rotational axis. See Figures 1-2 and 4A-4C, as well as at least col. 3, lines 4-11, col. 3, line 62 through col. 4, line 5, as well as col 4, lines 32-34, noting that the sleeve 21 is formed with an internal female screw portion 23 that is adapted to be in mesh with a male screw portion 3 that is provided on portion 1h of body 1, and noting that rotation of sleeve 21 as described in col. 3, line 62 through col. 4, line 5 and col. 4, lines 32-34 is relative to the body 1 so as to screw or unscrew 21 relative to 1.
Regarding claim 12, as shown in Figure 1, the body (1) includes a plurality of slots (such as, for example, the slots labeled as S1, S2, S3, and S4 in the annotated reproduction of Figure 1 below, and it is noted that S3 and S4 are additionally labeled in an annotated enlarged partial reproduction of Figure 1 below.
[AltContent: textbox (S4)][AltContent: textbox (S3)][AltContent: textbox (S2)][AltContent: textbox (S1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
308
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Enlarged portion of Figure 1:
[AltContent: textbox (S4)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
310
422
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (S3)]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 14, and 17-18 are allowed.
Claim 19, as best understood in view of the above rejections under 35 USC 112(b), would be allowable if rewritten (without broadening in any way) 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that Applicant appears to be arguing (on page 8 of the 1/22/2026 reply, in the paragraph beginning “[I]n contrast to the stated…”) that because the Ishikawa reference does not expressly teach the use of plural collets of different geometries, that somehow means that the claim language is not met. However, it is noted that claim 1 does not actually require the use of plural collets of different geometries. Applicant also appears to be arguing that because Ishikawa does not expressly teach that the collet 9 “is intended to be used interchangeably with other collets of differing geometries”, and does not teach that the retaining ring and nosepiece structure was designed to accommodate alternative collet dimensions, that somehow means that the claim language is not met.
However, it appears that Applicant is reading more into claim 1 than what the present claim language actually says. It is noted that in the reply filed January 22, 2026, independent claim 1 was amended to remove the requirement that the bit retainer comprises a “collet including a plurality of jaws positioned at least partially within the body, the collet defining a bore between the plurality of jaws configured to receive the tool bit”, and a considerable amount of “able” or functional/intended use type language regarding a collet was added to claim 1. For example, claim 1 now recites “the body including a bore configured to interchangeably receive” (i.e., capable of interchangeably receiving) “a selected collet of a plurality of collets, each collet of the plurality of collets having a different geometry” (i.e., the bore is capable of interchangeably receiving a collet that was at some point in time chosen/selected from a plurality of collets of different geometries), and recites that the bit retainer comprises “a wedge surface engageable with the selected collet when the selected collet is received in the bore of the body” (i.e., the wedge surface is capable of being engaged with the selected collet at a point in time when the selected collet is received in the bore of the body); and (the bit retainer comprises) “a sleeve surrounding the body, wherein the sleeve is movable relative to the body to engage the wedge surface against the selected collet and compress a plurality of jaws of the selected collet around the tool bit” (i.e., the sleeve is able to be moved relative to the body to engage the wedge surface against the selected collet and compress a plurality of jaws of the selected collet around the tool bit). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., apparently that the claim be directed to a kit that includes a bit retainer and plural collets of different geometries) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As noted in the above rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 5,405,220 to Ishikawa, Ishikawa teaches:
a body (1) coupled (via 1g) for co-rotation with the output spindle about a rotational axis (see Figure 1 and col. 3, lines 4-18, as well as at least col. 4, lines 37-45, for example), the body (1) including a bore (2) configured to (i.e., capable of) interchangeably (i.e., able to be interchanged) receive a selected collet (such as collet 9) of a plurality of collets, each collet of the plurality of collets having a different geometry (it is noted that claim 1 no longer expressly requires a collet to be met, and further, does not require a plurality of collets, and does not even require that the bore be capable of interchangeably receiving plural collets that each have different geometries, but rather, claim 1 is directed to a bit retainer, i.e., rather than being directed to a kit including a bit retainer and a plurality of collets or the like; furthermore, it is noted that claim 1 merely requires that the bore be capable of interchangeably receiving a collet, or at most, capable of interchangeably receiving a collet that was at some point in time “selected” from a plurality of collets of differing geometries; that said, the collet 9 was inherently chosen or selected at some point in time from a plurality of all of the collets in existence in the world, including ones that have different geometries than that of collet 9, or else the collet 9 would not be present in the disclosure of Ishikawa; furthermore, the collet 9 is considered to be inherently “interchangeable”, i.e., able to be interchanged, with a different collet, such as one of identical geometry to that of claim 9, and such as a collet of a second different geometry, such as with a different bore size to receive a tool bit of a slightly different diameter, for example, simply by reversing the assembly process shown in Figures 4A-4C and described in at least col. 4, lines 6-42, removing the first collet, and replacing it with such a collet of a second “geometry”)
Additionally, it is noted that even if Applicant were to amend the claim to (broadly) recite that the bore is capable of interchangeably receiving plural collets of (broadly) different geometries, it is noted that the collet (9) of Ishikawa is considered to be inherently “interchangeable” (i.e., able to be interchanged) with a collet of a second geometry (such as with a different bore size to receive a tool bit of a slightly different diameter, for example), simply by reversing the assembly process shown in Figures 4A-4C and described in at least col. 4, lines 6-42, removing the first collet, and replacing it with such a collet of a second “geometry”.
Additionally, in the paragraph spanning pages 8-9 of the 1/22/2026 reply, Applicant argues that “[T]he fact that a component can be removed during assembly or service does not render it ‘interchangeable’ within the meaning of amended claim 1” and that “[I]nterchangeability requires not only removability, but also design intent and structural compatibility across multiple collet variants”, and that “[I]shikawa contains no disclosure of alternate collet geometries, no teaching that the interface between the collet and nosepiece is standardized or dimensioned to accept different collets, and no reason a person of ordinary skill would understand that the tool was meant to operate with more than the singular, purpose-built collet shown.” However, such is not persuasive. Applicant appears to be reading more into the claim language that what the claim actually says. All that is required is for the bore of the body to be “configured to” (i.e., capable of) “interchangeably” (in a manner that is in some way able to be interchanged) receive “a” selected collet (i.e., that was, at some point in time, selected/chosen from a plurality of collets of different geometries). Given the fact that female screw portion 23 is threaded to male screw portion 3, and given the other configuration of the various components, it is clear that the collet 9 is able to be removed and interchanged with, for example, a further collet of identical geometry, or a further collet having a different inner bore size, for example, simply by reversing the assembly process shown in Figures 4A-4C and described in col. 4, lines 6-42, for example. Whether Ishikawa expressly teaches such or not is immaterial to the fact that reversing the assembly process taught by Ishikawa (especially in view of the screw portions 23, 3) inherently means that the bore is “able” to have a selected collet interchangeably received thereby.
That said, again, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., apparently that the claim include some particular non-recited structure in order for the bore to be capable of “interchangeably” receiving a selected collet; apparently that the claim requires that the bit retainer be part of a kit that includes plural collets of differing geometries) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant likewise requests (on page 9 of the 1/22/2026 reply) reconsideration and allowance of the claims dependent from claim 1 for the same reasoning. However, likewise, the same response to those arguments likewise applies re the rejected claims that depend from claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 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
February 19, 2026