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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 8 is difficult to see the features of the invention. Any changes must be done without adding new matter to the specification or the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The last paragraph of the specification states “In an alternative configuration, not explicitly shown, the modular tool 2 is configured such that the clamping element 42 is automatically actuated by the assembly tool 18 and thereby the clamping mechanism 40 is released when the assembly tool 18 is inserted into the access hole 16. With its front profile 20, the assembly tool abuts the clamping element 42 at the end of the access hole 16, which is thereby pushed out of the tenon 10 and generally radially outward and releases the tenon 10 for a movement in the longitudinal direction L. The clamping element 42 is spring-loaded, for example by means of a spring, so that the assembly tool 18 is operated against the spring. The insert 6 is subsequently ejected by a rotation D1 of the assembly tool 18. Subsequently, a new insert 6 can be introduced. As the assembly tool 18 is removed from the access hole 16, the clamping element 42 is then automatically retracted back into the tenon 10. “This description of the clamping element/mechanism is not clear. First it is noted that access hole 16 is shown in the figures as being on the opposite side of the hole where the clamping element is inserted. Also, this paragraph states that this is not shown in the drawings so it is hard to understand how it works. It states that the element 42 is spring loaded but that “as the assembly tool 18 is removed from the access hole 16, the clamping element 42 is then automatically retracted back into the tenon 10” It is unclear where exactly the spring is and how the “automatic actuation” happens. If the access hole 16 is on the opposite side as the clamping element, it is unclear how removing the tool from the opposite side causes the clamping element to retract back into the tenon, it seems it would not have any effect on it. This is also difficult to understand since the tool 18 is shown as being used on both sides of the device but only hole 16 is mentioned which is shown as being on the opposite side of the element 42. Also, if the clamping element retracts into the tenon it seems that the tenon would be stuck. The wording should be clarified without adding new matter to the specification or the drawings. Examiner reserves the right to raise these issues to a 112a rejection if they cannot be adequately addressed by explanation and without adding new matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-4, 6-9, 14-16, 18-20 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.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 14, 15, 16, 20 each recite the limitation “it”. It is unclear what “it” refers to.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the clamping element can be actuated by the assembly tool, it is configured such that the clamping element is automatically actuated by the assembly tool, thereby releasing the clamping mechanism when the assembly tool is inserted into the access hole". This limitation is unclear since it is not clearly explained in the specification. Normally “automatically” means that something is done on its own, but the claim recites automatic actuation by the assembly tool which implies it can only be done with the assembly tool. The scope of the claim is unclear.
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) 1, 3-5, 10-13, 15-16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Craig (DE102013102901, machine translation relied on).
Re Claim 1, Craig discloses a modular tool 10 comprising a body 12 and an insert 22/34 for machining a workpiece, wherein:the insert 22/34 comprises a tenon 30/34 for insertion into a receptacle of the body; the body comprises an access hole 46, [through which the tenon is accessible for an assembly tool]; and the tenon comprises a profile portion, which, upon insertion of the assembly tool into the access hole, [engages with a lateral surface of the assembly tool so that, by a rotation of the assembly tool, the insert can be ejected from the receptacle] (Fig. 1-4; pg. 4-5). 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. This statement applies to dependent claims below as well.
Re Claim 3, as best understood, Craig discloses [it is a rotary tool that is rotatable about an axis of rotation for machining a workpiece]; the tenon extends along the axis of rotation; and the access hole runs transversely to the axis of rotation (Fig. 1-4; pg. 4-5).
Re Claim 4, as best understood, Craig discloses it is a drill having one or more main cutting edges formed on the insert (Fig. 1-4; pg. 4-5).
Re Claim 5, Craig discloses the insert can be inserted into the body on the front side, and the body comprises for this purpose a seat on the front side with two arms between which the insert is held (Fig. 1-4; pg. 4-5).
Re Claim 10, Craig discloses the tenon of the insert has a two-fold rotational symmetry (Fig. 1-4; pg. 4-5).
Re Claim 11, Craig discloses the receptacle is an end portion of a media channel of the body (Fig. 1-4; pg. 4-5).
Re Claim 12, Craig discloses a method for ejecting an insert of a modular tool according to claim 1 wherein:the assembly tool 44 is inserted into the access hole 46 so that the lateral surface 44a of the assembly tool then engages with the profile portion (Fig. 4); and the assembly tool is subsequently rotated, thereby ejecting the insert out of the receptacle (Fig. 1-4; pg. 4-5).
Re Claim 13, Craig discloses the assembly tool has an at least four-fold rotational symmetry (Fig. 4).
Re Claim 16, as best understood, Craig discloses it is a drill having one or more main cutting edges formed on the insert (Fig. 1-4; pg. 4-5).
Re Claim 18, Craig discloses the insert can be inserted into the body on the front side, and the body comprises for this purpose a seat on the front side with two arms between which the insert is held (Fig. 1-4; pg. 4-5).
Re Claim 19, Craig discloses the insert can be inserted into the body on the front side, and the body comprises for this purpose a seat on the front side with two arms between which the insert is held (Fig. 1-4; pg. 4-5).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 14-15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig in view of Shozda (US 8,678,721).
Re Claim 2, Craig does not disclose due to the profile portion, the tenon is configured in the manner of a rack [in order to form, together with the assembly tool, a rack drive for ejecting the insert]. However, Shozda teaches due to a profile portion, a tenon 17 is configured in the manner of a rack in order [to form, together with an assembly tool, a rack drive for ejecting the insert] (Fig. 1-7). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize tenon is configured in the manner of a rack, as taught by Shozda, for the purpose of providing a desired geometry and also since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the tenon 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. 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. This statement applies to dependent claims below as well.
Re Claim 14, as best understood, Craig discloses [it is a rotary tool that is rotatable about an axis of rotation for machining a workpiece]; the tenon extends along the axis of rotation; and the access hole runs transversely to the axis of rotation (Fig. 1-4; pg. 4-5).
Re Claim 15, as best understood, Craig discloses it is a drill having one or more main cutting edges formed on the insert (Fig. 1-4; pg. 4-5).
Re Claim 17, Craig discloses the insert can be inserted into the body on the front side, and the body comprises for this purpose a seat on the front side with two arms between which the insert is held (Fig. 1-4; pg. 4-5).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig in view of Shozda, in further view of Fang (PGPub 2013/0017028).
Re Claim 20, as best understood, Craig does not disclose it comprises a releasable clamping mechanism for firmly clamping the insert; and the clamping mechanism comprises a clamping element, which is inserted into the body and engages with the tenon for the purpose of firm clamping. However, Fang teaches a releasable clamping mechanism 105 for firmly clamping an insert 91; and the clamping mechanism comprises a clamping element, which is inserted into the body and engages with the tenon for the purpose of firm clamping (Fig. 8). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a releasable clamping mechanism, as taught by Fang, for the purpose of ensuring the insert is held securely and since this is well-known for securing cutting inserts.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig in view of Fang (PGPub 2013/0017028).
Re Claim 6-8, as best understood, Craig does not disclose it comprises a releasable clamping mechanism for firmly clamping the insert; and the clamping mechanism comprises a clamping element, which is inserted into the body and engages with the tenon for the purpose of firm clamping, the profile portion is arranged between a head of the insert and a recess for the clamping element, the clamping element [can be actuated by the assembly tool]. However, Fang teaches a releasable clamping mechanism 105 for firmly clamping an insert 91; and the clamping mechanism comprises a clamping element, which is inserted into the body and engages with the tenon for the purpose of firm clamping, the profile portion is arranged between a head of the insert and a recess for the clamping element, the clamping element [can be actuated by an assembly tool] (Fig. 8). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a releasable clamping mechanism, as taught by Fang, for the purpose of ensuring the insert is held securely and since this is well-known for securing cutting inserts. 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. Note that the assembly tool is only claimed functionally.
Claim(s) 6, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig in view of Harif (US 8,317,436).
Re Claim 6, 8-9, as best understood, Craig does not disclose it comprises a releasable clamping mechanism for firmly clamping the insert; and the clamping mechanism comprises a clamping element, which is inserted into the body and engages with the tenon for the purpose of firm clamping, the clamping element [can be actuated by the assembly tool], it is configured such that the clamping element is automatically actuated by the assembly tool, thereby releasing the clamping mechanism when the assembly tool is inserted into the access hole. However, Harif teaches a releasable clamping mechanism 126 (Fig. 19) or 266 (Fig. 33) for firmly clamping an insert; and the clamping mechanism comprises a clamping element, which is inserted into the body and engages with the tenon for the purpose of firm clamping, the clamping element [can be actuated by an assembly tool], it is configured such that the clamping element [is automatically actuated by the assembly tool, thereby releasing the clamping mechanism when the assembly tool is inserted into the access hole] (Fig. 8). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a releasable clamping mechanism, as taught by Harif, for the purpose of ensuring the insert is held securely and since this is well-known for securing cutting inserts and to allow a biasing resilient force which can adapt to different geometries. 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. Note that the assembly tool is only claimed functionally.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (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