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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 9, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 4, 8, 16 and 19 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.
In claim 4, line 4, applicant claims “a tool”. There is a prior mention of “a tool” (claim 1, line 6) and it is unclear as to exactly how many “tool(s)” the applicant is attempting to claim in that under 35 USC 112 each distinct feature/limitation is require to have an exact nomenclature and subsequent references to the same feature/limitation should be preceded by a “said” or “the”. The lack of clarity renders the claimed subject matter indefinite.
In claim 8, line 2, it appears that “the web” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected based on their claim dependencies.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 13 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jonsson et al. (USP 9,562,346).
Regarding claim 1: Jonsson discloses a tool holder (as seen in figures 1-5) for a machine comprising:
a frame (as seen in figure 2, generally 10A);
and an actuator (as seen in figures 3-5, at 51) that can be moved from a retracted state to an extended state and back (as seen between figures 3 and 5), wherein the frame comprises a hook shaped recess (as seen in figure 3, at 41) having an opening and a cut out (as seen in figure 3, at 40) arranged at a distance from the hook shaped recess so that a front bracket pin (as seen in figure 3, at 31) of a tool can releasably connect to the hook shaped recess by entering the opening (as seen in figure 3) and a rear bracket pin (as seen in figure 3, at 30) of the tool can releasably connect to the cut out (as seen in figures 3-5), wherein the actuator is fixedly connected to the frame (as seen in figure 3, area of 51) with one end, the actuator further comprising a locking element (as seen in figure 3, at 50) that is designed to change the shape of the cut out in the extended state of the actuator (as seen in figure 5, wherein member 50 moves across cut out 40 hence “changing” its shape) and wherein the actuator further comprises a securing assembly “finger” (as seen in figure 5, at 61) designed to reduce the size of the opening of the hook shaped recess in the retracted state of the actuator (as seen in annotated figures below and as seen in figure 3, as finger portion moves into top portion of 41 to “reduce its size”) wherein the rear bracket pin can enter the cut out in the retracted state of the actuator (as seen in figure 3) and wherein the front bracket pin can enter the hook shaped recess in the extended state of the actuator (as seen in figure 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
125
148
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
140
130
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2: Jonsson discloses the tool holder of claim 1. Further, Jonsson discloses wherein the locking element is designed to change the shape of the cut out from a cut out to a hook shaped cut out as seen in a cross-sectional plane being cut through the tool holder and the cut out (as seen in movement between figures 3 and 5, area of 50), said cross sectional plane being oriented perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the rear bracket pin of the tool, when said rear bracket pin is snug embedded in the cut out (as seen in annotated figure 5 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
176
231
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3: Jonsson discloses the tool holder of claim 1. Further, Jonsson discloses wherein the opening is equal or greater than a diameter of the rear- or front bracket pin of the tool when the actuator is in the extended state (as seen in figure 5 and in annotated figure below), and wherein the opening is smaller than a diameter of the rear- or front bracket pin of the tool when the actuator is in the retracted state (as seen in figure 3 and in annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
125
148
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
140
130
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4: Jonsson discloses the tool holder of claim 3. Further, Jonsson discloses wherein the size of the opening is measured in a cross-sectional plane being cut through the tool holder and the hook shaped recess, said cross sectional plane being oriented perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the front bracket pin of the tool, when said front bracket pin is snug embedded in the hook shaped recess (as seen in figure 5 and in annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 7: Jonsson discloses the tool holder of claim 1. Further, Jonsson discloses wherein the frame comprises at least two side plates and a web (as seen in figure 2 area of 10A and in annotated figure 2 below), the webcolumn 1, line 62 to column 2, line 7).
PNG
media_image4.png
141
321
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13: Jonsson discloses the tool holder of claim 2. Further, Jonsson discloses wherein the opening is equal or greater than a diameter of the rear- or front bracket pin of the tool when the actuator is in the extended state (as seen in figure 5 and in annotated figure below), and wherein the opening is smaller than a diameter of the rear- or front bracket pin of the tool when the actuator is in the retracted state (as seen in figure 3 and in annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
125
148
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
140
130
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17: Jonsson discloses the tool holder of claim 2. Further, Jonsson discloses wherein the frame comprises at least two side plates and a web (as seen in figure 2 area of 10A and in annotated figure 2 below), the webcolumn 1, line 62 to column 2, line 7).
PNG
media_image4.png
141
321
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18: Jonsson discloses the tool holder of claim 3. Further, Jonsson discloses wherein the frame comprises at least two side plates and a web (as seen in figure 2 area of 10A and in annotated figure 2 below), the webcolumn 1, line 62 to column 2, line 7).
PNG
media_image4.png
141
321
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19: Jonsson discloses the tool holder of claim 4. Further, Jonsson discloses wherein the frame comprises at least two side plates and a web (as seen in figure 2 area of 10A and in annotated figure 2 below), the webcolumn 1, line 62 to column 2, line 7).
PNG
media_image4.png
141
321
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest in combination with previously claimed features/limitations a tool holder having an actuator wherein the actuator further comprising a rod and a housing into which the rod can retract and from which the rod can extend, wherein the rod is connected to the frame and wherein the housing is moving in relation to the frame when the actuator is moving between the retracted and the extended state and wherein the securing assembly and the locking element are fixedly connected to the housing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Monaghan et al. (USP 8,678,697) discloses a tool holder employing an actuator with various securing members and fingers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT ERIC PEZZUTO whose telephone number is (703)756-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/ROBERT E PEZZUTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3671