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 Objections
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:Each of these claims recite (one instance in Claims 1, 3-5, 8- 9 and multiple instances in claims 2, 6, 7): “the said” which is redundant, delete either “the” or “said”Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:-Fig. 3 appears to be missing components and/or is misleading. The specification states that Fig. 3 is supposed to have the connector of Fig. 1 engaged into a mandrel and that member E is engaged between a base B of a mandrel M and a tool body U, however, element B appears to be the same as element 3 of the member E. If the base B is separate component as the upper engaging portion 3 of member E then the entire drawing does not make any sense, as elements 3, 6a, 6b would not be present. -Elements 8a and 8b both point to the same component in Fig. 3 and were not referenced in Fig. 1. -Elements 6a and 6b are not labeled in Fig. 3 and it appears that element 6b is not in the drawing at all.
-Fig. 2b also labels 8a and 8b pointing to the same component. -Fig. 1 is missing labels for 8a/8b, if applicable. 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.
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 “operating machine tool for the machining of metal pieces including at least a mandrel and a tool body, characterized in further comprising an attachment connector member according to claim 1, said connector member being engaged in and between a base of said mandrel and of the said tool body” (claim 11 and 2) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Particularly “said connector member being engaged in and between a base of said mandrel and of the said tool body”. From the issues discussed above with Fig. 3, it appears that the mandrel is part of the connector (or is shown incorrectly).
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.
Specification
The Specification is objected to because:-Page 4-5 recites “The lower engaging portion 4 includes a first portion 6a exhibiting a truncated or truncated cone trigonal configuration 116, a second portion 6b with a cylindric end configuration 117 branching there-off, being capable, in use, of being engaged in the mentioned tool body U.” However, the Abstract and claims describe “a first portion (3) and a second portion (4) branching there-off; the said second portion (4) including a first surface (6a) exhibiting a trigonal truncated cone configuration (116) and a second end surface (6b) with a cylindric configuration (117).” These descriptions are inconsistent with each other.
- The specification states that Fig. 3 is supposed to have the connector of Fig. 1 engaged into a mandrel and that member E is engaged between a base B of a mandrel M and a tool body U, however, element B appears to be the same as element 3 of the member E. If the base B is separate component as the upper engaging portion 3 of member E then the entire drawing does not make any sense. -On page 5, “being communicating” should be reworded.
- -On page 5, “centrale hole” should read -- central hole --
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 1-12 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 the limitation " The attachment connector member". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "especially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “from each other opposite bands in relation to said central body”. It is unclear what “from each other” is referring to and appears to be a possible translation error.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “branching there-off”. It is unclear what the components are branching off from.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the said first portion being capable of being engaged in a base of a mandrel being part of the said machine tool; the said second portion being capable of being engaged in a tool body being part of the said machine tool”. The scope is not clear since, as discussed for the specification above, it seems that the base of the mandrel is the same as the engaging portion and thus it is unclear if the connector member can be between these components as claimed.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the said second portion being further provided with a hollow central hole, two cross notches branching there-off”. It is unclear what it means for “two cross notches branching there-off”. Is this stating the notches branch off from the central hole? What are they branching off from?
Claim 6 recites “said body being further provided with at least a dihedral notch, with two recesses with a rectangular section and with opposed concavities, and with a cylindric peripheral recess”. It is unclear if “with two recesses with a rectangular section and with opposed concavities, and with a cylindric peripheral recess” is further describing the “at least a dihedral notch” or if these are separate. Overall, it is unclear how many notches/recesses are being claimed in this limitation. Also “at least a” should read –at least one--.
Claim 7 recites “said body being further provided with at least a notch, with a rounded recess and with a cylindric peripheral recess”. Similar to Claim 6, it is unclear if “with a rounded recess and with a cylindric peripheral recess” is further describing the “at least a notch” or if these are separate. Overall, it is unclear how many notches/recesses are being claimed in this limitation. Also “at least a” should read –at least one--.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "said hollow central holes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “being communicating”. It is unclear what it means for holes to being communicating and appears to be a possible translation error. Additionally, there is only antecedent basis for one hole so it is further unclear what the hole is communicating with.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “operating machine tool for the machining of metal pieces including at least a mandrel and a tool body, characterized in further comprising an attachment connector member according to claim 1, said connector member being engaged in and between a base of said mandrel and of the said tool body”. The scope is not clear since, as discussed for the specification above, it seems that the base of the mandrel is the same as the engaging portion and thus it is unclear if the connector member can be between these components as claimed.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "said central holes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “being communicating”. It is unclear what it means for holes to being communicating and appears to be a possible translation error. Additionally, there is only antecedent basis for one hole so it is further unclear what the hole is communicating with.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by von Haas (US 4748879).
Re Claim 1, as best understood, von Haas discloses the attachment connector member 8/11, especially for the connection of operating parts of a machine tool, including a cylindric central body 11, from each other opposite bands in relation to said central body, a first portion (smaller diameter portion of 11) and a second portion 23/27” branching there-off; characterized in that the said second portion including a first surface 27” exhibiting a trigonal truncated cone configuration (Fig. 1, 5; col. 5, lines 49-53) and a second end surface 23 with a cylindric configuration (Fig. 1, 5; Col. 4).
Re Claim 2, as best understood, von Haas discloses the said first portion [being capable of being engaged in a base of a mandrel being part of the said machine tool]; the said second portion [being capable of being engaged in a tool body being part of the said machine tool] (Fig. 1, 5; Col. 4-5). The recitation in brackets [ ] is considered functional language. The reference discloses all the structural components of the member, which read on those of the instant invention. Therefore, the device is capable of performing the same desired functions as the instant invention as claimed.
Re Claim 3, von Haas discloses the said first portion being further provided with a hollow central hole (Fig. 1).
Re Claim 8, von Haas discloses the first engaging portion exhibiting a substantially truncated cylindric configuration provided with a hole for a fastening key nut; the said body being further provided with a cylindric peripheral surface without cavities (Fig. 1).
Re Claim 10, as best understood, von Haas discloses said hollow central holes being communicating and axially arranged to allow the passage and the circulation of a liquid coolant (Fig. 1).
Re Claim 11, as best understood, von Haas discloses operating machine tool for the machining of metal pieces including at least a mandrel and a tool body, characterized in further comprising an attachment connector member according to claim 1, said connector member being engaged in and between a base 2 of said mandrel and of the said tool body 3 (Fig. 1, 5).
Re Claim 12, as best understood, von Haas discloses said central holes being communicating and axially arranged to allow the passage and the circulation of a liquid coolant (Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over von Haas in view of Chen (PGPub 2017/0043408).
Re Claim 4, von Haas discloses the said second portion being further provided with a hollow central hole (Fig. 1) but does not disclose two cross notches branching there-off. Chen teaches a portion 10 being further provided with a hollow central hole 12, two cross notches 14 branching there-off (Fig. 3). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize two cross notches, as taught by Chen, for the purpose of providing desired configuration with an additional route for fluid to escape or be routed.
Re Claim 5, von Haas does not disclose the said first portion exhibiting a substantially trigonal truncated cone configuration. However, Chen teaches a portion 10 exhibiting a substantially trigonal truncated cone configuration (note tapering end and triangular shape; Fig. 1-5; para. 18). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize this shape, as taught by Chen, for the purpose of providing desired configuration with easier gripping and also since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the component of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claim(s) 6-7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over von Haas in view of Haimer (DE 102013100374 A1).
Re Claim 6, as best understood, von Haas does not disclose the said first engaging portion exhibiting a substantially truncated cone configuration; the said body being further provided with at least a dihedral notch, with two recesses with a rectangular section and with opposed concavities, and with a cylindric peripheral recess. However, Haimer teaches first engaging portion 1 exhibiting a substantially truncated cone configuration (left or right side of component 1; Fig. 1); the said body being further provided with at least a dihedral notch 6, with two recesses with a rectangular section and with opposed concavities, and with a cylindric peripheral recess (Fig. 1-5). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize this configuration, as taught by Haimer, for the purpose of allowing easier gripping of the component and also since such structure is well known in the art and also since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the component of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Re Claim 7, von Haas does not disclose the said first engaging portion exhibiting a substantially truncated cone configuration being provided with an end notch; the said body being further provided with at least a notch, with a rounded recess and with a cylindric peripheral recess. However, Haimer teaches first engaging portion 1 exhibiting a substantially truncated cone configuration being provided with an end notch; the said body being further provided with at least a notch (left side of component 1; Fig. 1), with a rounded recess and with a cylindric peripheral recess (Fig. 1-5). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize this configuration, as taught by Haimer, for the purpose of allowing easier gripping of the component and also since such structure is well known in the art and also since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the component of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Re Claim 9, von Haas does not disclose the said body being further provided with a cylindric peripheral surface provided with a recess. However, Haimer teaches a body being further provided with a cylindric peripheral surface 5 provided with a recess 6 (Fig. 1-7). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a cylindric peripheral surface provided with a recess, as taught by Haimer, for the purpose of allowing easier gripping of the component and also since such structure is well known in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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 J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799