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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-10, drawn to a power tool including a collet, classified in B26F 5/026.
II. Claims 11-17, drawn to a power tool including a biasing member, classified in B25F 5/023.
III. Claims 18-20, drawn to a method of using a power tool, classified in A01G 3/085.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related devices. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the product recited in group I required the feature of the collet, while the product of Group II does not, and the product recited in group II required the feature of a biasing member, while the product of Group I does not. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions III and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case In the instant case the product recited in group I can be used in a process other than the process recited in group III, such as using the process recited in group III without the collet.
Inventions III and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case In the instant case the product recited in group II can be used in a process other than the process recited in group III, such as using the process recited in group III without the biasing member.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Group I recites a power tool including a collet. Group I would require a search in at least B26F 5/026 along with a unique text search.
Group II recites a power tool including a biasing member. Group II would require a search in at least B25F 5/023 along with a unique text search.
Group III recites a method of using a power tool. Group III would require a search in at least A01G 3/085 along with a unique text search.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
A telephone call was made to Spenser Schwabe on 9/29 to request an oral election to the above restriction requirement.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 10/03/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II-III. there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in over the phone on 10/03/2025.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges claims to priority under 35 U.S.C. 120 or 121 for U.S. application 18645446 to U.S. provisional application serial No. 63621277 filed on 1/16/2024 and U.S. provisional application serial No. 63461736 filed on 4/25/2023.
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 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banholzer (US 20200338711 A1) in view of McCord (US 3284114).
Regarding claim 1, Banholzer teaches a power tool comprising:
a housing (102 including an electric motor (106, see Figure 3);
a work element (104);
a shaft (114, see Figure 2) extending between the housing and the work element (see Figure 2), wherein the shaft includes an outer shaft (116) and an inner shaft (118); and
a clamp (120) coupled to the shaft and extending along a longitudinal axis between a first end and a second end (left and right end in Figure 2), wherein the clamp is actuatable between a locked position and an unlocked position (paragraph 0024), wherein the inner shaft is configured to slide longitudinally within the outer shaft when the clamp is in the unlocked position, and wherein the outer shaft and the inner shaft are secured in a desired position when the clamp is in the locked position (see Figure 3).
Banholzer fails to teach the clamp comprising: an inner collar coupled to the outer shaft, an outer collar rotatable about the inner collar between the locked position and the unlocked position, and a collet within the outer collar adjacent the first end and configured to engage the inner collar in the locked position.
McCord teaches a pole (22 and 24) including a clamp comprising: an inner collar (26) coupled to the outer shaft (see Figure 2), an outer collar (38) rotatable about the inner collar between the locked position and the unlocked position (see Figure 2), and a collet (48) within the outer collar adjacent the first end and configured to engage the inner collar in the locked position (see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Banholzer to change the clamp into the collet clamp, as taught McCord, in order to make an efficient and durable clamp for a pole (col. 1 lines 18-27 of McCord).
Regarding claim 2, modified Banholzer further teaches an interior surface of the outer collar comprises a first plurality of threads adjacent the first end (as modified, see Figure 2 of McCord); an exterior surface of the inner collar comprises a second plurality of threads adjacent the first end (as modified, see Figure 2 of McCord); and the first plurality of threads are configured to engage the second plurality of threads (as modified, see Figure 2 of McCord).
Regarding claim 3, modified Banholzer further teaches rotation of the outer collar in a first direction moves the outer collar and the collet towards the second end to the locked position (as modified, see Figure 2 of McCord); rotation of the outer collar in a second direction moves the outer collar and the collet towards the first end to the unlocked position (as modified, see Figure 2 of McCord); and the second direction is opposite the first direction (as modified, see Figure 2 of McCord).
Regarding claim 4, modified Banholzer further teaches the collet is configured to engage the inner shaft in the locked position and prevent movement of the inner shaft (as modified, see Figure 2 of McCord).
Regarding claim 5, modified Banholzer further teaches the collet is rotationally isolated from the outer collar (as modified, see Figure 2 of McCord).
Regarding claim 6, modified Banholzer further teaches the outer collar is configured to rotate about the inner collar a first unknown value in the first direction and a second unknown value in the second direction.
Modified Banholzer fails to teach less than or equal to 90° in the first/second direction for locking/unlocking.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific degrees of rotation range being less than 90° in the first/second direction, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the device of Banholzer to have the specific degrees of rotation range being less than 90° in the first/second direction set froth in the claim for the desired effort wanted by the end used for locking/unlocking of the clamp.
Regarding claim 7, modified Banholzer further teaches an end of the collet adjacent the second end defines a first inclined surface having a width increasing from the second end towards the first end (as modified, see Figure 2 of McCord); an end of the inner collar adjacent the first end defines a second inclined surface having a width increasing from the first end towards the second end (as modified, see Figure 2 of McCord); and the first inclined surface engages the second inclined surface in the locked position (as modified, see Figure 2 of McCord).
Regarding claim 10, modified Banholzer further teaches the outer collar comprises a plurality of protrusions extending from an outer surface adjacent the first end, the plurality of protrusions spaced about a circumference of the outer collar (as modified, see Figure 2 of McCord).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banholzer (US 20200338711 A1) in view of McCord (US 3284114) in further view of King (US 7484300 B2).
Regarding claim 8, modified Banholzer further teaches a mount configured to secure the inner collar to the outer shaft (as modified, see Figure 2 of McCord) and mounted via friction fit (as modified, see Figure 2 of McCord).
Modified fails to teach one or more fasteners configured to secure the mount to the inner collar and the outer shaft.
King teaches one or more fasteners (31) configured to secure the mount to the inner collar and the outer shaft (see Figure 5A-B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Banholzer to change friction fit into rivets, as taught King, in order to make a more secure connection (col. 2 lines 58-64, see Figures 6A-B of King).
Regarding claim 9, modified Banholzer further teaches the mount comprises a cylindrical plate coupled to an interior surface of the outer shaft (as modified, see Figure 2 of McCord).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 PM.
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, Ashley Boyer can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 12/31/2025