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 Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2, “ memebr ” is a typo of member. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2, “ memebr ” is a typo of member. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim s 10 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph , as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 10 and 20 recite “ the second groove is configured as a hemispherical groove ” . However, the specification merely states that “ In one embodiment, the second groove 322 may be a hemispherical groove ”. It is not clear what this entails since the drawings merely show a hole. This aspect of the invention is not shown or described in a way that one of ordinary skil l in the art can understand how this would be implemented or how it differs from what is shown and described. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 4, 14 , 10, 20 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 4 recites the limitation " the tool rack 4 " in line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the tool rack 4" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 and 20 recite “the second groove is configured as a hemispherical groove”. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation, and also due to unclarity from 112, 1 st rejection above. 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) s 1- 3, 5-6, 11-13, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Okuda ( JP2001191288A , machine translation relied on) . Re Claim 1, Okuda discloses a tool set comprising: a tool holder 100 having a latch unit; a tool 10 removably mounted to the tool holder, and having a groove unit 10c , the latch unit of the tool holder removably engaging the groove unit of the tool for limiting relative movement between the tool and the tool holder; and a tool rack including a rack body 203 that defines a retaining space permitting the tool to be moved thereinto along a path by the tool holder, and a blocking member 201 that is mounted to the rack body, and that is movable relative to the rack body between an unblocking position where the blocking member is separated from the path of movement of the tool, and a blocking position where the blocking member is on the path of movement of the tool; [ wherein, when the tool holder is moved away from the rack body after the tool is moved into the retaining space by the tool holder and after the blocking member moves to the blocking position, the tool is blocked by the blocking member so that the latch unit of the tool holder is separated from the groove unit of the tool and that the tool holder is separated from the tool ] (Fig. 2-13; Abstract; page 10-15 ) . The recitation in brackets [ ] is considered functional language. The reference discloses all the structural components of the tool, 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 2, Okuda discloses the tool has a flange 10a , the blocking member having a blocking section, the blocking section being on the path of movement of the tool when the blocking member is at the blocking position (Fig. 2-13; Abstract; page 10-15) . Re Claim 3, Okuda discloses the blocking member is linearly movable relative to the rack body (Fig. 8-9; pg. 12 ) , the blocking section having a U-shaped opening (FIG. 4-5) . Re Claim 5, Okuda discloses the groove unit of the tool includes a first groove, the latch unit of the tool holder including a first latch member that is able to engage the first groove for preventing relative movement between the tool and the tool holder in a first direction (Fig. 2-13; Abstract; page 10-15) . Re Claim 6, Okuda discloses the tool holder further has a holder body, the latch unit further including a first barrel that is connected to the holder body, the first latch member being disposed in the first barrel, and resiliently engages the first groove (Fig. 2-13; Abstract; page 10-15) . Re Claim 11, Okuda discloses a tool set comprising: a tool holder 100 having a latch unit; a tool 10 removably mounted to the tool holder, and having a groove unit 10c , the latch unit of the tool holder removably engaging the groove unit of the tool for limiting relative movement between the tool and the tool holder; and a tool rack including a rack body 203 that permits the tool to be moved thereinto by the tool holder, and a blocking member 201 that is mounted to the rack body, and that is movable relative to the rack body; [ wherein, when the tool holder is moved away from the rack body after the tool is moved into the rack body by the tool holder and after the blocking member moves to block the tool, the latch unit of the tool holder is separated from the groove unit of the tool and that the tool holder is separated from the tool ] (Fig. 2-13; Abstract; page 10-15) . The recitation in brackets [ ] is considered functional language. The reference discloses all the structural components of the tool, 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 12, Okuda discloses the tool has a flange 10a , the blocking member having a blocking section, the blocking section being on a path of movement of the tool when the blocking member is at a blocking position (Fig. 2-13; Abstract; page 10-15) . Re Claim 13, Okuda discloses the blocking member is linearly movable relative to the rack body (Fig. 8-9; pg. 12) , the blocking section having a U-shaped opening (FIG. 4-5) . Re Claim 15, Okuda discloses the groove unit of the tool includes a first groove, the latch unit of the tool holder including a first latch member that is able to engage the first groove for preventing relative movement between the tool and the tool holder in a first direction (Fig. 2-13; Abstract; page 10-15) . Re Claim 16, Okuda discloses the tool holder further has a holder body, the latch unit further including a first barrel that is connected to the holder body, the first latch member being disposed in the first barrel, and resiliently engages the first groove (Fig. 2-13; Abstract; page 10-15) . Claim(s) 1- 2, 5-6, 8-12, 15-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Xian (CN 104772620 A, from IDS , machine translation relied on) . Re Claim 1, X ian discloses a tool set comprising: a tool holder 100 having a latch unit (para. 101-110; Fig. 1-5B) ; a tool 200 removably mounted to the tool holder, and having a groove unit, the latch unit of the tool holder removably engaging the groove unit of the tool for limiting relative movement between the tool and the tool holder; and a tool rack including a rack body 320 that defines a retaining space permitting the tool to be moved thereinto along a path by the tool holder, and a blocking member 330 that is mounted to the rack body, and that is movable relative to the rack body between an unblocking position where the blocking member is separated from the path of movement of the tool, and a blocking position where the blocking member is on the path of movement of the tool; [wherein, when the tool holder is moved away from the rack body after the tool is moved into the retaining space by the tool holder and after the blocking member moves to the blocking position, the tool is blocked by the blocking member so that the latch unit of the tool holder is separated from the groove unit of the tool and that the tool holder is separated from the tool] (para. 101-110; Fig. 1-5B) . The recitation in brackets [ ] is considered functional language. The reference discloses all the structural components of the tool, 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 11, X ian discloses a tool set comprising: a tool holder 100 having a latch unit; a tool 200 removably mounted to the tool holder (para. 101-110; Fig. 1-5B), and having a groove unit, the latch unit of the tool holder removably engaging the groove unit of the tool for limiting relative movement between the tool and the tool holder; and a tool rack including a rack body 320 that permits the tool to be moved thereinto by the tool holder, and a blocking member 330 that is mounted to the rack body, and that is movable relative to the rack body; [wherein, when the tool holder is moved away from the rack body after the tool is moved into the rack body by the tool holder and after the blocking member moves to block the tool, the latch unit of the tool holder is separated from the groove unit of the tool and that the tool holder is separated from the tool] (para. 101-110; Fig. 1-5B). The recitation in brackets [ ] is considered functional language. The reference discloses all the structural components of the tool, 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 2 and 12 , X ian discloses the tool has a flange, the blocking member having a blocking section, the blocking section being on the path of movement of the tool when the blocking member is at the blocking position (para. 101-110; Fig. 1-5B) . Re Claim 5 and 15 , X ian discloses the groove unit of the tool includes a first groove, the latch unit of the tool holder including a first latch member that is able to engage the first groove for preventing relative movement between the tool and the tool holder in a first direction ( i.e. hollow vertical area of element 10; para. 101-110; Fig. 1) . Re Claim 6 and 16 , X ian discloses the tool holder further has a holder body, the latch unit further including a first barrel that is connected to the holder body, the first latch member being disposed in the first barrel, and resiliently engages the first groove (para. 101-110; Fig. 1) . Re Claim 8 and 18 , X ian discloses the groove unit of the tool further includes a second groove, the latch unit further including a second latch member that is able to engage the second groove for preventing relative movement between the tool and the tool holder in a second direction transverse to the first direction (i.e. hole on side of element 10; para. 101-110; Fig. 1) . Re Claim 9 and 19 , X ian discloses the tool holder further has a holder body, the latch unit further including a second barrel that is connected to the holder body, the second latch member being disposed in the second barrel, and resiliently engages the second groove (para. 101-110; Fig. 1) . Re Claim 10 and 20 , as best understood, X ian discloses the second groove is configured as a hemispherical groove (i.e. hole on side of element 10; para. 101-110; 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) 7 , 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda Re Claim 7 , 17 , Okuda discloses the first latch member is configured as a ball, and the first groove is configured as an annular groove (pg. 11) . Okuda is silent to the ball being steel . However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize steel balls due to durability and strength of said material and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416 . Claim (s) 4 , 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda in view of X ian ( CN 104772620 A , from IDS) and Kopp (US 10 , 865 , 816 ). Re Claim 4 , 14 , Okuda does not disclose the tool rack further includes a linear actuator that is connected to the rack body, and a linking member that interconnects the linear actuator and the blocking member so that the blocking member is moved between the unblocking position and the blocking position by the linear actuator. However, X ian teaches a blocking member 330 that moves linearly relative to a tool rack (1-5B). Further, Kopp teaches a linear actuator and a linking member capable to interconnect the linear actuator and a blocking member to move blocking member linearly (Fig. 1-6 ; abstract; col. 6-8 ). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a linear actuator for moving the blocking member linearly, as taught by Xian and Kopp , for the purpose of simplifying the movement of the elements and since linear actuators is extremely well known in the art and could easily be adopted for an automating a linear movement. Claim (s) 3 , 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over X ian in view of Okuda . Re Claim 3 , 13 , X ian discloses the blocking member is linearly movable relative to the rack body, the blocking section having a opening (FIG. 4-5). Xian does not disclose the opening is U-shaped . Okuda teaches a U-shaped opening of a blocking member 203 (Fig. 4-5). It would be obvious to have a u-shaped opening as taught by Okuda, for the purpose of having an optimal shaped area for performing blocking as desired and also since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the opening 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) 4 , 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over X ian in view of Kopp (US 10 , 865 , 816 ). Re Claim 4 , 14 , X ian does not disclose the tool rack further includes a linear actuator that is connected to the rack body, and a linking member that interconnects the linear actuator and the blocking member so that the blocking member is moved between the unblocking position and the blocking position by the linear actuator. However, Kopp teaches a linear actuator and a linking member capable to interconnect the linear actuator and a blocking member to move blocking member linearly (Fig. 1-6; abstract; col. 6-8). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a linear actuator for moving the blocking member linearly, as taught by Xian and Kopp, for the purpose of simplifying the movement of the elements and since linear actuators is extremely well known in the art and could easily be adopted for an automating a linear movement. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5429 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Thomas Hong can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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