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 .
Comment on Claim Line Numbering vs. Page Line Numbering
It is noted that the pages on which the claims are located have been provided with line numbers for the page. That said, it is noted that for any reference herein to line numbers re the claims, the reference is to a line number of the claim, rather than to a line number of the page. For example, in present claim 1, line 4 of the claim, the claim sets forth the text “a chuck having”, though it is noted that this text is found on line 5 of the page.
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 1-12 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 term “easy” in claim 1, line 1, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, it is unclear how “easy” the assembly (and possibly disassembly) must be in order to be considered to be “easy”, and it is unclear how difficult the assembly (and possibly disassembly) must be in order to be excluded by the term.
In claim 1, line 1, in the limitation “for easy assembly and disassembly”, it is unclear as claimed whether “easy” is intended to only go with “assembly”, or whether “easy” is additionally intended to go with “disassembly”.
In claim 1, lines 10 and 14, the claim recites the limitation "the cutting surface". However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In particular, it is noted that the claim previously (in line 8) recited “at least one cutting surface”. Thus, it is unclear as claimed which specific cutting surface (of the range of one to an infinite number of cutting surfaces previously recited re the limitation “at least one cutting surface”) is intended to be reference via the recitation of “the cutting surface”.
In claim 1, lines 8-11, the claim recites “at least one cutting surface formed on a periphery of the nut positioning portion by cutting and defining a distance between an axis of the nut positioning portion and said cutting surface being smaller than a radius of the nut positioning portion”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is set forth as “being smaller than a radius of the nut positioning portion”, i.e., the recited distance between an axis of the nut positioning portion and “said cutting surface”, vs. “said cutting surface” itself. In the event that the former is intended, Applicant may wish to consider language such as --at least one cutting surface formed on a periphery of the nut positioning portion by cutting and defining a distance between an axis of the nut positioning portion and said at least one cutting surface, said distance being smaller than a radius of the nut positioning portion--.
In claim 1, last three lines, the claim recites “a protruding edge configured to pass said cutting surface, enter the annular groove, be blocked by the nut positioning portion, and thereby be engaged in the annular groove”. However, it is unclear as claimed to what “thereby” intends to refer, i.e., by what element(s), by what action(s), etc.? It is additionally unclear as claimed whether “by” in the term “thereby” is intended to reference a physical location/proximity, vs. whether “by” in the term “thereby” is intended to mean “via” (as in via or by way of certain action(s)).
In each of claims 10-12, the claim recites “wherein the chuck is a shrink-fit chuck and has an interior clamping hole configured to expand or contract as a temperature of the chuck changes for a tool to be installed or clamped therein”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is meant by “therein”, i.e., in the chuck, vs. in the interior clamping hole.
In each of claims 10-12, the claim recites “wherein the chuck is a shrink-fit chuck and has an interior clamping hole configured to expand or contract as a temperature of the chuck changes for a tool to be installed or clamped therein”. However, it is unclear as claimed whether “therein” is intended to only go with “clamped”, or whether “therein” is also intended to go with “installed”, thus rendering it unclear whether the tool must be installed “in” anything (i.e., “in” whatever “therein” refers to, such as the chuck, or alternatively, the interior clamping hole, for example) in order to meet the “installed” alternative.
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 1-12, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112 above, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 9,387,542 to Gosselin (hereinafter, “Gosselin”).
Gosselin teaches a tool holder for “easy” assembly and disassembly (see, for example, col. 2, lines 1-3; see also at least Figures 8-14 and col. 4, lines 15-48, for example), the tool holder comprising:
a holder body (such as 132; see Figures 8 and 12-14, for example; see also at least col. 4, lines 19-29, for example);
a chuck (which includes 102, 109, and also the tool holder 104 for holding a tool bit such as 112, for example; see Figures 8-9, 11-14, and at least col. 3, line 50 through col. 4, line 37, for example) having
an annular groove (107) recessed on a periphery of the chuck (102+109+104) (see Figures 8-9 and at least col. 3, lines 50-59 and col 4, lines 15-29, for example);
a nut positioning portion (such as 109) disposed adjacent to the annular groove (107) (see Figures 8-9, for example); and
at least one “cutting” surface (106) formed on a periphery of the nut positioning portion (109) by cutting {it is noted that the recitation of the so-called “cutting” surface being formed “by cutting” is a product-by-process limitation, noting that the claim is not a method claim; product-by-process claims/limitations are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, but rather are only limited to the structure implied by the steps; “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself” and “[T]he patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production” and “[I]f the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted); see MPEP section 2113; all that being said, it is noted that the truncated portions/surfaces 106 taught by Gosselin are considered to meet the limitation “at least one cutting surface formed on a periphery of the nut positioning portion by cutting”, noting that the surfaces 106 are blind as to the operation that produced them, and the surfaces 106 shown in Figures 8-10A and 13-18 are structurally the same as the claimed “cutting surfaces”, noting that the surfaces 106 are “formed on a periphery of the nut positioning portion” 109 in a manner so as to define a distance, labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 10A below as “D”, between “an” axis, such as the center axis, of the nut positioning portion 109, and the cutting surface 106, which distance D is smaller than a radius, labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 10A below as “R”, of the nut positioning portion 109, as can be seen in at least Figures 8-10A; in particular, as can be seen in the annotated reproduction of Figure 10A below, D is smaller than R by the amount “Q” labeled below) and (the at least one cutting surface 106) “defining” a distance (labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 10A below as “D”) between an axis (such as the center axis of 109) of the nut positioning portion (109) and said cutting surface (106) being smaller (by amount Q, labeled below) than a radius (labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 10A below as “R”) of the nut positioning portion (109); and
a clamping nut (130) being screwable (onto threads 133) on the holder body (132) to tighten and fix the chuck (102+109+104) to the holder body (132) (see Figures 8-9, 11-14, and col. 4, lines 19-29, for example) and having
a protruding edge (131; see Fig. 9, for example) configured to pass said cutting surface (106), enter the annular groove (107), be “blocked” by the nut positioning portion (109), and “thereby” be engaged in the annular groove (107) (see Figures 11, 9, 12-14, col. 3, lines 50-59, and col. 4, lines 15-48, for example).
[AltContent: textbox (Q)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (R)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (D)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
222
234
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the chuck (102+109+104) has multiple said cutting surfaces (106) (see Figure 10A, where two “cutting” surfaces 106 can be seen; see also at least col. 3, lines 56-59; col. 4, lines 33-41; see also claims 1 and 7 of the reference which describe a pair of opposed clearance portions, and it is noted that the clearance portions are elements 106 as disclosed in at least col. 3, lines 56-59).
Regarding claim 3, the multiple cutting surfaces (106, 106) are arranged at “equiangular intervals”. See Figure 10A, noting that the two opposed “cutting” surfaces/clearance portions 106, 106 are arranged at equiangular intervals, e.g., about the periphery of the chuck (102+109+104).
Regarding claims 4-6, the clamping nut (130) has an interior conical surface (adjacent 109; see Figure 9, for example); and
the nut positioning portion (109) has a conical construction (see at least Figure 9) allowing the nut positioning portion (109) to abut the interior conical surface (of 130) when the protruding edge (131) is engaged in the annular groove (107). See Figure 9. See also col. 4, lines 23-24, as well as col. 4, line 63 through col. 5, line 2, and claim 1 of the reference, for example.
Regarding claims 7-9, the holder body (132) has a conical hole (see Figures 8 and 12-14; see also col. 4, lines 23-24, as well as col. 4, line 63 through col. 5, line 2, and claim 1 of the reference, for example); and
the chuck (102+109+104) has a holder body positioning portion (102) having a conical construction to match the conical hole (of 132) and abut an inner surface of the conical hole (132) (see Figures 8 and 12-14; see also col. 4, lines 23-24, as well as col. 4, line 63 through col. 5, line 2, and claim 1 of the reference, for example).
Regarding claims 10-12, the chuck (102+109+104) is a shrink-fit chuck (see col. 5, lines 3-17, which teaches that the tool holder portion 104 of the chuck can be a shrink-fit chuck) and has an interior clamping hole configured to expand or contract as a temperature of the chuck changes for a tool to be installed or clamped therein (noting the teachings in col. 5, lines 3-17 of tool holder 104 being able to hold a non-round shaped tool shank via shrink fit clamping, it is considered to be inherent that such requires 104 to have an interior clamping hole that will expand and contract as a function of chuck temperature changes in order to install and clamp a tool “therein”, or else the non-round shaped tool shank would not be clamped via shrink fitting, i.e., temperature expansion and contraction of an interior hole must occur in order to clamp such a tool shank via shrink fit).
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 10-12 (as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112) alternatively are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 9,387,542 to Gosselin (hereinafter, “Gosselin”) as applied to at least claims 1-3 above.
Gosselin teaches all aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were described in the above rejections based thereon.
Additionally, Gosselin meets the limitations of claims 10-12, as described above.
In the alternative regarding claims 10-12, it is noted that Gosselin teaches a variety of types of ways in which tool holding can be accomplished via the tool holder 104 portion of the chuck 102+109+104, including via shrink clamping (col. 5, lines 3-17), though Gosselin does not appear to expressly show the shrink-fit tool holder 104 (taught as being used to clamp non-round shaped tool shanks in col. 5, lines 3-17). That said, in the event that it is held that Gosselin does not anticipate claims 10-12, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of shrink fit tool holders (attached to or part of taper shank type chucks/tool holder arrangements) that have an inner clamping hole configured to expand and contract as a temperature of the chuck changes in order for a tool to be installed or clamped therein is extremely well-known and widely used for the (well-known) purpose of providing a secure arrangement for holding the tool/tool bit.
Therefore, (in the alternative) it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the specific shrink fit tool holder 104 (taught by Gosselin) have “an interior clamping hole configured to expand or contract as a temperature of the chuck changes for a tool to be installed or clamped therein”, as set forth in claims 10-12, as is well-known, for the benefit of achieving the well-known purpose of providing a secure arrangement for holding the tool/tool bit.
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 ERICA E CADUGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 5:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and via 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/ERICA E CADUGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
eec
January 21, 2026