Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/520,140

Machine Tool Device, Tool Unit and Machine Tool System

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Nov 27, 2023
Examiner
HTAY, AYE SU MON
Art Unit
3745
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Robert Bosch GmbH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
238 granted / 355 resolved
-3.0% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
382
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
40.5%
+0.5% vs TC avg
§102
30.2%
-9.8% vs TC avg
§112
27.1%
-12.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 355 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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(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 3, 6, 9 and 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. Regarding Claim 3, the claim verbiage “a mounting tool” is indefinite. It is unclear if the aforementioned mounting tool is the same as previously “tool” as claimed in Claim 1 or a different tool. The Examiner recommends clarifying the claim verbiage. Regarding Claim 6, the claim verbiage “the driver unit and the fastening unit have a fit to one another which functions according to the poka-yoke principle” is indefinite. It is unclear since the poka-yoke has multiple principles such as elimination, replacement, prevention, facilitation, detection and mitigation. It is also unclear what element(s) the claim verbiage “which functions according to the poka-yoke principle” is referring to. For example, it is unclear if there are connection elements on the driver unit and/or the fastening unit that are constructed to connect in a way that follows a type of poka-yoke connection. Regarding claim 9, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Regarding Claim 12, the claim verbiage “the machine tool device is configured to connect a brush to an angle grinder” is indefinite. It is unclear how the brush is connected to an angle grinder. The Examiner recommends clarifying the claim verbiage. 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 1-11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Childs et al. (US 20030136010, hereinafter: “Childs”). In reference to Claim 1 Childs discloses: A machine tool device (10) for connecting a tool (14) to a tool holder (as shown in annotated Fig. 2 of Childs) of a machine tool, comprising: at least one driver unit (20, 24) configured to establish a rotationally fixed connection to the tool; at least one fastening unit (100, 120, 124; Fig. 2, Fig. 6a, 6b) configured to axially fasten the tool to the tool holder; and a positive locking unit (124, 28) configured to connect the driver unit and the fastening unit to one another in a rotationally fixed manner via a positive locking.[0030-0058] (Fig. 1-8b). [0034, Childs] … a central portion of the outer flange 120 includes a hub 124 that projects in an inward direction and is cooperatively received in an interlocking fashion between the shaft 20 and the outwardly directed projection 28 of the inner flange 24. As a result, the outer flange 120 is preferably rotationally fixed with respect to the shaft 20 and the inner flange 24… PNG media_image1.png 615 863 media_image1.png Greyscale Figure 1: Annotated Figure 2 of Childs. In reference to Claim 2 Childs discloses: The machine tool device according to claim 1, wherein the fastening unit is configured to be fastened to the tool holder by a movement of the driver unit. [0034, Childs] (Fig. 2, Fig. 6a, 6b). In reference to Claim 3 Childs discloses: The machine tool device according to claim 2, wherein the driver unit has a mounting interface (mounting interview on the side of 28 and on the side of shaft 20) configured to cooperate with a mounting tool (14) to generate the movement of the driver unit for fastening the fastening unit to the tool holder. In reference to Claim 4 Childs discloses: The machine tool device according to claim 1, wherein the driver unit has at least one driver element (28) configured to establish a rotationally fixed connection to the fastening unit and the rotationally fixed connection to the tool. [0030-0034] (Fig. 1-8b). In reference to Claim 5 Childs discloses: The machine tool device according to claim 1, further comprising: at least one axial locking element (150, 154, 152, 180 190) configured to axially lock a connection of the fastening unit to the driver unit.[0033-0035] (Fig. 2, Fig. 6a, 6b). In reference to Claim 6 Childs discloses: The machine tool device according to claim 1, wherein the driver unit and the fastening unit have a fit to one another which functions according to the poka-yoke principle. [0032, Childs] … Also, the inner flange 24 includes a projection 28 that extends in an outward direction and is received in a cooperatively shaped hole in the blade 14. The projection 28 has a non-circular cross-section so that the inner flange 24 transmits torque to the blade 14, so that the blade is rotationally fixed to the inner flange with minimal play. In reference to Claim 7 Childs discloses: The machine tool device according to claim 1, wherein the driver unit (20, 24) and the fastening unit (100, 120, 124; Fig. 2, Fig. 6a, 6b) are configured in one piece. [0033-0035] (Fig. 2, Fig. 6a, 6b). In reference to Claim 8 Childs discloses: A tool unit comprising: a tool (14); and a machine tool device (10) comprising: at least one driver unit (20, 24) configured to establish a rotationally fixed connection to the tool; at least one fastening unit (100, 120, 124; Fig. 2, Fig. 6a, 6b) configured to axially fasten the tool to a tool holder (as shown in annotated Fig. 2 of Childs) of a machine tool (14); and a positive locking unit (124, 28) configured to connect the driver unit and the fastening unit to one another in a rotationally fixed manner via a positive locking [0034]. [0030-0058] (Fig. 1-8b). In reference to Claim 9 Childs discloses: The tool unit according to claim 8, characterized in that the machine tool device (10) can be detachably attached to the tool, in particular detachably without tools. [0012] … In an embodiment, the ratchet mechanism permits one-way rotation so that the click member can deliver a greater amount of torque to the bolt body when rotated in a removal direction. Advantageously, the click bolt avoids overtightening, therefore permitting hand removal. In reference to Claim 10 Childs discloses: A machine tool system (10) comprising: a machine tool (14); and a tool unit (10) comprising: a tool (14); and a machine tool device comprising: at least one driver unit (20, 24) configured to establish a rotationally fixed connection to the tool; at least one fastening unit (100, 120, 124; Fig. 2, Fig. 6a, 6b) configured to axially fasten the tool to a tool holder (as shown in annotated Fig. 2 of Childs) of the machine tool; and a positive locking unit (124, 28) configured to connect the driver unit and the fastening unit to one another in a rotationally fixed manner via a positive locking. [0034]. [0030-0058] (Fig. 1-8b). In reference to Claim 11 Childs discloses: The machine tool device according to claim 1, wherein the machine tool device is a tool adapter (20, 30, 32) [0031]. (Fig. 1-2). In reference to Claim 13 Childs discloses: The machine tool device according to claim 1, wherein the fastening unit is configured to be fastened to the tool holder by a rotation of the driver unit. [0034, Childs] (Fig. 1-8). In reference to Claim 15 Childs discloses: The machine tool device according to claim 5, wherein the at least one axial locking element (150, 152, 154, 180, 190) is configured to axially lock the connection of the fastening unit to the driver unit in a detachable manner without tools [0033-0035] (Fig. 1-8. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childs et al. (US 20030136010, hereinafter: “Childs”) in view of Reinauer (US 20110217135). In reference to Claim 14 Childs discloses: The machine tool device according to claim 5, wherein the at least one axial locking element (150, 152, 154, 180, 190) includes a circular spring ring (180) configured to axially lock the connection of the fastening unit to the driver unit.(“The illustrated spring 180 is generally circular or washer-shaped, having a generally sinusoidal contour. However, it will be recognized that the spring could be provided in a variety of shapes appropriate to provide biased deflection in an axial direction, such as a coil spring. In order to movably mount the click member 170 to the body 152, the cap 190 is fixed to the post 158 to contain the spring 180 within the cavity 174,” [0037]). Although Childs does not explicitly disclose the circular spring ring (180) is an O-ring, Reinauer teaches a tool holder in which an O-ring, an annular spring or helical spring could be used for the purpose (“A forced return of the at least one collet chuck 7 is preferably provided. This is achieved in the present case by providing an elastic restoring element R in the region of the head 29' of the at least one collet chuck 7 which is suitably secured against slipping. The restoring element may be designed as an O-ring or as an annular spring or helical spring,” [0052]). (Fig. 1-3). Based on the teaching of Childs and Taylor, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circular spring of Childs by replacing it with an O-ring as taught by Reinauer for the purpose of utilizing an O-ring in place of an annular spring ring as well-known in the art (Reinauer, [0052]). Claims 12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childs et al. (US 20030136010, hereinafter: “Childs”) in view of Taylor (US 20060075854). In reference to Claims 12, 16-17 Examiner’s Note: Claim 12 contains indefinite claim verbiage as discussed in the 112b rejection section above. Claim 12 is being examined as best understood. Childs discloses: The machine tool device according to claim 1, wherein the machine tool device is configured to connect a tool disc such as a circular saw blade (Abstract; [0016]; Fig. 1-8). Childs is silent on the tool disc being a brush or an angle grinder. Taylor teaches a power tool that can be used for changing attachments such as various blades, brushes and angle grinders (“Tools such as power tools, pneumatic tools and the like often require a mechanical device to change attachments. For example, angle grinders typically include a wrench for removing grinding blades, wire brushes and the like. Spanner wrenches, a wrench with two protrusions extending generally perpendicular from the plane of the wrench, are used for changing attachments such as various blades, brushes, and the like on a grinder,” [0003]). Based on the teaching of Childs and Taylor, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool disc of Childs by changing the tool disc such as brushes, angle grinder as taught by Taylor for the purpose of utilizing the power tool for various desired purposes (Taylor, [0003]). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Linzell (US 20040007437), Huber (US 6454639), and Helm (US 4901479) disclose a power tool that is relevant to the Applicant’s invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYE SU MON HTAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-3:00pm PST. 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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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. /AYE S HTAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3745 /NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 27, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12584497
FAN DRIP-PROOF STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584488
BALANCE DRUMS AND SYSTEMS FOR MANAGING AXIAL FORCES FOR PUMPS AND RELATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571324
ASSEMBLY FOR AN AIRCRAFT TURBOMACHINE, AND AIRCRAFT TURBOMACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12553351
ENGINE COMPONENT WITH A COOLING SUPPLY CIRCUIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12553349
VIBRATION DAMPENING SYSTEM INCLUDING RESONANT-TUNED ELONGATED BODY FOR DAMPER ELEMENT(S) FOR TURBINE COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+28.5%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 355 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month