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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13 recites for the bit to be a double ended bit to fit in the second area recited in claim12. Claim 13 is directed to tool holder, which is intended to retain or a bit driver. The bit is considered the workpiece and further limiting the workpiece fails to further limit the holder as recited in claim 12, since the second area is at least capable of receiving a double ended bit with a smaller tip on each end. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form (e.g., combination claim), rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strauch (6,330,846).
PNG
media_image1.png
652
244
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Strauch discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, i.e., a tool holder for a hand-held power tool an intended workpiece as disclosed in 01:5-17, comprising:
an at least partially tubular base body carrier 2 defining an inner holder receiving bit 18, Fig. 2 that receives an insertion tool 18;
a locking device 16, 17, 19 configured to releaseably lock the received insertion tool, the locking device including a locking sleeve 16 and a locking element 17; and
a spring element 19 configured to load the locking sleeve into a locked position along a longitudinal extension of the at least partially tubular base body Fig. 2,
PNG
media_image2.png
333
265
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (SHOULDER)] wherein a contact element shoulder as annotated in partial Fig. 2 is defined at least partially on an inner circumference of the locking sleeve,
wherein a fixing element 15, 20 is defined on an outer circumference of the at least partially tubular base body, and
wherein the spring element 19 is configured to load the fixing element Fig. 2 against the contact element shoulder.
PNG
media_image1.png
652
244
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (BLOCKING ELEMENT)]Regarding claim 2, PA (prior art, Strauch) meets the limitations, i.e., the tool holder according to claim 1, further comprising:
a blocking element annotated partial Fig. 2 associated with the locking sleeve, wherein the spring element is arranged between the blocking element and the fixing element 15, 20.
Regarding claim 3, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool holder according to claim 2, wherein the spring element 19 is configured to bear against the blocking element BE annotated Fig. 2 in a circumferential direction of the at least partially tubular base body and/or along the longitudinal extension.
Regarding claim 7, PA meets the limitations, i.e., tool holder according to claim 1, wherein the contact element shoulder annotated above abuts the fixing element 15, 20 along the longitudinal extension Fig. 2 and/or in the circumferential direction of the at least partially tubular base body.
Regarding claim 8, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool holder according to claim 1, wherein the spring element 19 abuts the fixing element 15 along the longitudinal extension Fig. 2 and/or in the circumferential direction.
Regarding claim 9, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool holder according to claim 1, wherein the fixing element 15 is arranged along the longitudinal extension between the contact element shoulder annotated above and the spring element 19, Fig. 2.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st AREA
1ST Dim)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2ND AREA)]Regarding claim 10, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool holder according to claim 1, wherein the contact element shoulder is arranged along the longitudinal extension between a receiving area annotated partial Fig. 2 configured to receive the locking element 17 and the fixing element Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 11, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool holder according to claim 10, wherein:
the locking sleeve 16 defines a guide section sloped receiving area on an inner circumference of the locking sleeve Fig. 2, the guide section facing the at least partially tubular base body 2, and the guide section sloped section configured to guide the locking element 17, and the receiving area is arranged along the longitudinal extension between the guide section and the contact element Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 12, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool holder according to claim 1, wherein: the inner holder carrier 2 defines (i) a first area at a free end of the inner holder and having a first diameter annotated above, and (ii) a second area facing away from the free end and having a second diameter annotated, the second diameter is smaller than the first diameter, and an outer circumference of the insertion tool is arranged in the first area.
Regarding claim 13, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool holder according to claim 12, since the holder is at least capble of receiving and holding an insertion tool 18 that is a double-head bit including a similarly sized machining section that would be capable of being arranged in the second area.
CLAIM 14,
Strauch discloses all of the limitations of claim 14, i.e., a hand-held power tool chuck for an electric screwdriver 01:17, comprising:
a tool holder 2 including:
an at least partially tubular base body carrier 2 defining an inner holder receiving bit 18, Fig. 2 that receives an insertion tool 18;
a locking device 16, 17, 19 configured to releaseably lock the received insertion tool, the locking device including a locking sleeve 16 and a locking element 17; and
PNG
media_image2.png
333
265
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (SHOULDER)]a spring element 19 configured to load the locking sleeve into a locked position along a longitudinal extension of the at least partially tubular base body Fig. 2,
wherein a contact element shoulder as annotated in partial Fig. 2 above is defined at least partially on an inner circumference of the locking sleeve,
wherein a fixing element 15, 20 is defined on an outer circumference of the at least partially tubular base body, and
wherein the spring element 19 is configured to load the fixing element Fig. 2 against the contact element shoulder.
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strauch in view of Martindell (4,692,073).
Strauch meets all of the limitations of claim 4, i.e., a tool holder according to claim 2, except for the blocking element BE, annotated above to be (i) displaceable along the longitudinal extension on an outer circumference of the at least partially tubular base body, and/or (ii) rotatable in the circumferential direction of the at least partially tubular base body.
PNG
media_image5.png
363
558
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Martindell teaches a check wherein the spring biasing the locking element is secured to the body by either a fixed blocking element 24 or by a flat washer 84 retained by a retaining ring 86, Figs. 3 and 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of Strauch by replacing the fixed blocking element with the washer and retainer as taught by Martindell for ease of access for disassembly or service and/or as an alternative means of retaining the spring.
Regarding claim 5
Strauch meets all of the limitations of claim 5, i.e., a tool holder according to claim 2, except for a terminating element associated with the blocking element, the terminating element formed in a receptacle arranged on an inner circumference of the locking sleeve.
PNG
media_image5.png
363
558
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Martindell teaches a check wherein the spring biasing the locking element is secured to the body by either a fixed blocking element 24 or by a flat washer 84 retained by a retaining ring 86 that defines a terminating element associated with the blocking element, the terminating element 86 being formed in a receptacle 36 arranged on an inner circumference of the locking sleeve, Figs. 3 and 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of Strauch by replacing the fixed blocking element with the washer and the terminating element as taught by Martindell for ease of access for disassembly or service and/or as an alternative means of retaining the spring.
Regarding claim 6, PA (prior art, Strauch modified by Martindell) meets the limitations, i.e., the tool holder according to claim 5, wherein the blocking 84 modified by Martindell element is arranged along the longitudinal extension between the spring element and the terminating element 86 Fig. 4.
Claim 13, in the alternative is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strauch in view of Smith (686,424).
Strauch meets all of the limitations of claim 13 as applied to claim 12 above, however in order to expedite the prosecution, Strauch does not meet a tool holder in combination with a double-head bit.
PNG
media_image6.png
499
129
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Smith teaches a screw driver kit having double-head tool bits F, wherein the driving bit is arranged in a second area having a smaller diameter than the first area defined by the receiving cavity of the chuck. The double-head bit engages the second area with shoulders @apperture K defining a stop. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of Strauch double-head bits secured in the second smaller diameter area by stopping shoulders as taught by taught by Smith for diversifying the tool with bits of different sizes and/or shapes.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon at this time, are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Huang and Fruhm are cited to show related inventions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI SHAKERI whose telephone number is (571)272-4495. The fax phone number for forwarding unofficial documents for discussion purposes only is (571) 273-4495. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
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 on 571 272 8548. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hadi Shakeri/
November 15, 2025 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723