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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-15) and Species A1 and B2 (encompassed by claims 1-10 and 14) in the reply filed on 12/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 8-10 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, line 6, the limitation “two of the first assembling recesses” may need to be amended to - - two of the plurality of first assembling recesses - -.
In claim 5, line 8, the limitation “one of the second assembling recesses” may need to be amended to - - one of the plurality of second assembling recesses - -.
In claim 8, lines 4, the limitation “greater that” may need to be amended to - - greater than - - .
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ziegltrum et al. (US 10,828,739, hereinafter “Ziegltrum”).
As applied to claim 1, Ziegltrum teaches a sensing tool holder, comprising:
a tool holder unit (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a base (16); and
an additive body mounted on the base by an additive manufacturing method (12, Fig. 1, col. 12. Lines 50-60), the additive body comprising:
an assembling structure formed on an outer surface of the additive body and comprising:
a plurality of first assembling recesses symmetrically arranged in pairs with an axle line of the additive body as a symmetrical axle (recesses for housing sensors, paragraph bridging cols. 7 and 8); and
a plurality of second assembling recesses symmetrically arranged in pairs with the axle line of the additive body as the symmetrical axle (sub-recesses for housing circuit substrates, paragraph cols. 17 and 18, recess 62 for battery pack 42);
a sensing unit arranged on the assembling structure (sensing unit includes sensors 30/32/34/36 and battery 42); and
a housing (threaded cover 66) mounted around the additive body and covering the sensing unit (covering the battery of the sensing unit, col. 15, lines 12-21; “cover” see col. 6, lines 6-16), wherein a closed space (solid material is considered as closed space) is formed between the housing and the additive body.
As applied to claim 3, Ziegltrum teaches the invention cited including wherein a passage is formed in the base (26, Figs. 4-6), and the tool holder unit comprises a channel (26a) coiled and formed in the additive body, wherein the channel comprises an inlet and an outlet, the inlet communicates with the passage, and a diameter of the outlet (diameter of 26a) is smaller than a diameter of the inlet (diameter of 26).
As applied to claim 4, Ziegltrum teaches the invention cited including wherein a center of the inlet and a center of the outlet are both located on the axle line of the additive body (see centerline in Figs. 4 and 5).
As applied to claim 5, Ziegltrum teaches the invention cited including wherein the sensing unit comprises a circuit board; a transmitting unit disposed on the circuit board; a power supply configured to supply a power required by the circuit board and the transmitting unit, wherein the circuit board and the power supply are disposed in symmetrical two of the first assembling recesses; and at least one sensor, wherein each of the at least one sensor is disposed in a corresponding one of the second assembling recesses and is electrically connected to the circuit board; wherein, the transmitting unit is signally connected to the circuit board and each of the at least one sensor (abstract, col. 2, lines 45-51, col. 11, lines 20-25, col. 18, lines 26-31, see claims 1, 4, 5, 26).
As applied to claim 6, Ziegltrum teaches the invention cited including wherein an outer contour of each of the second assembling recesses is polygonal (see Fig. 1, radial recess 62 has three sides as seen in Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziegltrum et al. (US 10,828,739, hereinafter “Ziegltrum”) in view of Bleicher (US 11,992,910).
As applied to claim 2, Ziegltrum teaches the invention cited including the additive body is made of metal but does not explicitly teach the body is powder bed fusion member.
Bleicher teaches a tool holder wherein a sensor unit is integrated as a structural entity (abstract). The tool holder (tool body) is manufactured using a generative process such as SLM process including metal powder applied layer by layer melted by means of laser and fused with layers below it so that complex geometries with internal or external intersections can be formed (col. 4, lines 27-41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have formed the additive body of Ziegltrum, using powder bed fusion process, as taught by Bleicher, as an effective means of forming an additive tool body having complex geometry with internal or external intersections in a precise, efficient and repeatable manner.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziegltrum et al. (US 10,828,739, hereinafter “Ziegltrum”) in view of Hardwick et al. (US 11,311,959, hereinafter “Hardwick”).
As applied to claim 7, Ziegltrum teaches the invention cited including the an outer contour of each of second assembling recesses is polygonal but does not explicitly teach each of the polygonal outer contour is hexagonal.
Hardwick teaches that it is well-known to have tool holders with tool body having passageways with outer contour having a variety of different shapes including hexagonal (col. 15, lines 52-57, Figs. 3L-3R especially Fig. 3O). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed a hexagonal shaped recess in the tool body of Ziegltrum, as taught by Hardwick, as an effective means of matching the shape and profile of the sensing unit having hexagonal shape depending on the specific design criteria.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 14 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 and to overcome the claim objection set forth in this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 03/17/2026
Prosecution Insights