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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should be in paragraph form. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The following claims are vague, indefinite, confusingly, awkwardly worded and/or lacking proper antecedent basis:
“its” in claim 5 is recited which does not positively recite the limitation.
“their” in claim 8 is recited which does not positively recite the limitation.
The limitations need to be positively regrading claim 12.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Dines et al 8826505.
Dines et al disclose the claimed invention as recited in the claims as shown below:
1. (Currently amended) Atoolhiolder for a press 23 14 & 14 & 14 & 14 20
PNG
media_image1.png
14
67
media_image1.png
Greyscale
toolholder 20
2. (Currently amended) The toolholder according to claim 1, herein the toolholder See Fig.7 which has an arrow which shows the direction of activation
3. (Currently amended) The toolholder according to claim 1, wherein the toolholder is configured and/or arranged so that theretaining elements are movable from a deactivated position to an activated position by introduction of a tool See Fig.7 which has an arrow which shows the direction of activation and deactivation is the opposite direction
4. (Currently amended) The toolholder according to The toolholder according to wherein the actuation member wherein the retaining elements This is the natural function of the device
5. (Currently amended) The toolholder according to The toolholder according to wherein the retaining elements are claws wherein:
PNG
media_image2.png
7
53
media_image2.png
Greyscale
each claw is articulated in rotation at the level of its bend, in particular by means of a pin
PNG
media_image2.png
7
53
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the claws an axis
6. (Currently amended) The toolholder according to claim 1, wherein the retaining elements Col.3 lines 48-50 discloses a spring used to secure the apparatus
7. (Currently amended) The toolholder according to claim 6, wherein the actuation member elastic elementsCol.3 lines 48-50 discloses a spring used to secure the apparatus
8. (Currently amended) The toolholder according to claim 1, wherein the toolholder comprises a camThe cam surface is the inner surface of element 14
11. (Currently amended) A tool comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
7
53
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a support for a press having an actuation member 23 with a drive ring and retaining elements 14 arranged to retain a tool 20, the toolholder being configured and/or arranged so that the retaining elements are movable from an activated position to a deactivated position by virtue of a movement in a first direction of the actuation member, and
PNG
media_image2.png
7
53
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a driving ring 23 with a drive ring
12. (Currently amended) A press comprising a toolholder claim 1. This subject matter is covered above
13. (Currently amended) method of operating a-thetoolholder claim 1, wherein the method comprises:7
PNG
media_image2.png
7
53
media_image2.png
Greyscale
causing a movement of the actuation member performed by an operator, deactivating the retaining elements This is the natural function of the device
14. (Currently amended) method of operating a-thetoolholder claim 1, wherein the method comprises:
PNG
media_image2.png
7
53
media_image2.png
Greyscale
causing a first movement of the actuation member in a first directioperformed by an operator,
PNG
media_image2.png
7
53
media_image2.png
Greyscale
deactivatingthe retaining elements first movement
PNG
media_image2.png
7
53
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
7
53
media_image2.png
Greyscale
causing a second movement of the actuation member This is the natural function of the device
15. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 13, wherein the method comprises:
PNG
media_image2.png
7
53
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
7
53
media_image2.png
Greyscale
causing application of a force by the tool activating the retaining elements This is the natural function of the device
16. (New) The method according to claim 14, wherein the method comprises: - bringing the tool and the toolholder into contact, - causing application of a force by the tool to the toolholder so as to retract the retaining elements and to place the tool in the toolholder, - activating the retaining elements by the elastic return element. This is the natural function of the device
17. (New) The method of operating the toolholder according to claim 13, wherein the movement of the actuation member in the first direction is an elementary movement. This is the natural function of the device
18. (New) The method of operating the toolholder according to claim 14, wherein the first movement of the actuation member in the first direction is a first elementary movement, and wherein the second movement of the actuation member in the second direction is a second elementary movement. This is the natural function of the device
19. (New) The toolholder according to claim 2, wherein the movement of the actuation member in the first direction of the actuation member is a first elementary movement, and the movement in the second direction of the actuation member is a second elementary movement. This is the natural function of the device
20. (New) The toolholder according to claim 4, wherein the retaining elements are articulated in rotation about axes, the axes being in a plane or in a plurality of planes perpendicular to an axis of the toolholder. This is the natural function of the device
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dines et al 8826505 in view of Chen 5896639.
Dines et al discloses the claimed invention except for a fork and lever.
Chen discloses a tool holder having a fork 3000 for hold a retainer 5000 and a lever 4000 which is alternative arrangement for a tool holder and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Dine et al device by providing an alternative arrangement of a fork for holding the retainer and lever for actuation to yield the predictable result of having an alternative set up. KSR
PNG
media_image3.png
878
800
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The 892 form discloses prior art being made of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEE D WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4499. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6;30-4;30.
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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
LEE D. WILSON
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
Ldw
/LEE D WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 October 22, 2025