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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/13/2026, with respect to 112b rejection of Claims 3, 6, 9 and 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112b rejection of Claims 3, 6, 9 and 12 have has been overcome.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Caruso (US 20040134023).
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, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Caruso (US 20040134023).
In reference to Claim 1
Caruso discloses:
A machine tool device (brushing device 13, 11;Fig. 6-9) for connecting a tool (brush 13) to a tool holder (2) of a machine tool (1, 2) , comprising: at least one driver unit (1; motor, drive train; “Again referring to FIG. 1, the bodies 1 and 2 may house batteries in a battery compartment (or the unit could be in electrical communication with a separate power source) and a motor and a drive train, which can power rotatable shaft 3,” [0055]) configured to establish a rotationally fixed connection to the tool; at least one fastening unit (10, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24) configured to axially fasten the tool to the tool holder; and a positive locking unit (21, 22, 23, 24; Fig. 9; “A cup 15 and its locking features 21-23, could be attached to such a chuck and thus give a clean approach to locking the chuck to the power head. An important distinction between this disclosed retention method and those previously referred to, is that the retention method is external to the hex receiving shank of the power head, which has several distinct advantages. The lock is stronger, more positive, and accessible to the user. So several locking means are contemplated” [0063]) configured to connect the driver unit and the fastening unit to one another in a rotationally fixed manner via a positive locking, wherein the tool holder is configured to connect to a further tool (tool 20; Fig. 8) without the use of the machine tool device (11, 13). [0002-0073] (Fig. 1-9).
In reference to Claim 2
Caruso discloses:
The machine tool device according to claim 1, wherein the fastening unit (10, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24) is configured to be fastened to the tool holder by a movement of the driver unit. [0063] (Fig. 9).
In reference to Claim 3
Caruso discloses:
The machine tool device according to claim 2, wherein the driver unit (1) has a mounting interface (interface 1, 2, 3; Fig. 9) configured to cooperate with a mounting tool (24) to generate the movement of the driver unit for fastening the fastening unit to the tool holder. [0063] (Fig. 9).
In reference to Claim 4
Caruso discloses:
The machine tool device according to claim 1, wherein the driver unit has at least one driver element (3 rotatable shaft) configured to establish a rotationally fixed connection to the fastening unit (10, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24) and the rotationally fixed connection to the tool (13). [0063] (Fig. 9).
In reference to Claim 5
Caruso discloses:
The machine tool device according to claim 1, further comprising: at least one axial locking element (23) configured to axially lock a connection of the fastening unit to the driver unit. [0063] (Fig. 9).
In reference to Claim 6
Caruso discloses:
The machine tool device according to claim 1, wherein the driver unit (1) and the fastening unit have a fit to one another which functions according to the poka-yoke principle (via 21, 22, 23, 24) [0063] (Fig. 9).
In reference to Claim 7
Caruso discloses:
The machine tool device according to claim 1, wherein the driver unit (1) and the fastening unit (10, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24) are configured in one piece (Fig. 1-9).
In reference to Claim 8
Caruso discloses:
A tool unit comprising: a tool (13); and a machine tool device (brushing device 13, 11;Fig. 6-9) comprising: at least one driver unit (1; motor, drive train; “Again referring to FIG. 1, the bodies 1 and 2 may house batteries in a battery compartment (or the unit could be in electrical communication with a separate power source) and a motor and a drive train, which can power rotatable shaft 3,” [0055]) configured to establish a rotationally fixed connection to the tool; at least one fastening unit (10, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24) configured to axially fasten the tool to a tool holder (2) of a machine tool (1, 2); and a positive locking unit (21, 22, 23, 24; Fig. 9; [0063]) configured to connect the driver unit and the fastening unit to one another in a rotationally fixed manner via a positive locking, wherein the tool holder is configured to connect to a further tool (tool 20; Fig. 8) without the use of the machine tool device (13,11). [0002-0073] (Fig. 1-9).
In reference to Claim 9
Caruso discloses:
The tool unit according to claim 8, wherein the machine tool device is configured to be detachable from the tool without tools. [0063] (Fig. 9).
In reference to Claim 10
Caruso discloses:
A machine tool system comprising: a machine tool (1,2) ; and a tool unit (13, 11) comprising: a tool (13); and a machine tool device (11) comprising: at least one driver unit (1; motor, drive train; “Again referring to FIG. 1, the bodies 1 and 2 may house batteries in a battery compartment (or the unit could be in electrical communication with a separate power source) and a motor and a drive train, which can power rotatable shaft 3,” [0055]) configured to establish a rotationally fixed connection to the tool; at least one fastening unit (10, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24) configured to axially fasten the tool (13) to a tool holder (2) of the machine tool (1, 2); and a positive locking unit (21, 22, 23, 24; Fig. 9; [0063]) configured to connect the driver unit and the fastening unit to one another in a rotationally fixed manner via a positive locking [0063], wherein the tool holder (2) is configured to connect to a further tool (tool 20; Fig. 8) without the use of the machine tool device (13,11). [0002-0073] (Fig. 1-9).
In reference to Claim 11
Caruso discloses:
The machine tool device according to claim 1, wherein the machine tool device (11) is a tool adapter (10, 11, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23). [0063] (Fig. 8).
In reference to Claim 13
Caruso discloses:
The machine tool device according to claim 1, wherein the fastening unit (10, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24) is configured to be fastened to the tool holder (2) by a rotation of the driver unit. [0063] (Fig. 9).
In reference to Claim 15
Caruso discloses:
The machine tool device according to claim 5, wherein the at least one axial locking element (23) is configured to axially lock the connection of the fastening unit (10, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24) to the driver unit in a detachable manner without tools. [0063] (Fig. 9).
In reference to Claim 16
Caruso discloses:
The tool unit according to claim 8, wherein the tool is brush (13) (Fig. 9).
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.
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caruso (US 20040134023) in view of Taylor (US 20060075854).
In reference to Claims 12, 17
Caruso discloses:
The machine tool device according to claims 1 and 10, wherein the tool is a brush and the machine tool is a power tool “as a power screw driver, power nut-driver, power hand drill, power sander, etc.” (Abstract).
Caruso is silent on the machine tool being 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 Caruso 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 machine tool of Caruso by utilizing the power tool as an angle grinder as taught by Taylor for the purpose of utilizing the power tool for various desired purposes (Taylor, [0003]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caruso (US 20040134023) in view of Reinauer (US 20110217135).
In reference to Claim 14
Caruso discloses:
The machine tool device according to claim 5, wherein the at least one axial locking element (23) includes a circular cup (15) [0063] (Fig. 9).
Although Caruso does not explicitly disclose 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 Caruso, 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 locking device (cup 15) of Caruso by including an O-ring as taught by Reinauer for the purpose of utilizing an O-ring to secure against slipping (Reinauer, [0052]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights