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
Applicant’s election of species (a) (illustrated in Figures 1-5) in the reply filed on July 31, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 7-14 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “biasing member” in claim 5; and “a cylinder device that pushes the drawbar toward the tapered hole” in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of collet clearances that extends from one collet end forming one end and having an annular shape toward the other end of the main spindle . . . and is each a clearance” in Lines 17-19. The limitation “one collet end” already has antecedent basis in Line 10. As such, it is unclear whether the recitation in Line 17 is the same collet end as previously set forth or a different collet end. The scope of “one collet end forming one end” is unclear. That is, one end forming one end appears redundant and vague. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the annular shape applies to the plurality of clearance or the one collet end. Further still, it is unclear what is meant by the shape being “toward the other end of the spindle.” In particular, it is unclear whether the shape extends toward the other end or is merely located toward the other end or is only considered annular toward the other end of the spindle. In addition, the phrase “is each a clearance” is problematic because it presumably refers back to the plurality, which is singular. Moreover, the plurality is already a set of clearances, so setting forth that each is a clearance creates an antecedent basis issue. If Applicant means that each of the plurality is respectively located between a pair of claw portions in the plurality of claw portions, then the claim should recite such language. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “a cam surface that comes into contact with the collet cam surface when the collet chuck moves forward” in Lines 24-25. It is unclear whether any forward movement would cause the contact or simply that the collet must be moved forward until it contacts the cam surface. The term “when” also creates a lack of clarity. If the “when” condition never occurs, it is unclear whether the capability is required or not. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “the main spindle includes a plurality of spindle air supply channels for suppling air to the housing space in an unclamped state” in Lines 26-17. It is unclear what features are required in the unclamped state. It is also unclear how the air supply channels are limited by the limitation of being in an unclamped state. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 2 recites that the “a relative position of each collet clearance . . . with respect to each spindle air supply channel . . . is the same.” It is unclear how each would have the same position. If Applicant means that the same position in a certain view or circumferentially about the central axis of the spindle, the claim should set that forth. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 3 recites “the number of the plurality of clearances . . . the number of the plurality of spindle air supply channels” in Lines 2-3. Each plurality is singular. The claim must refer to the number of clearances/channels in each plurality being the same. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “phase positions of the plurality of spindle air supply channels and phase positions of the plurality of collet clearances agree with each other.” The scope of this limitation is unclear. The metes and bounds of the phase positions agreeing with each other are not clearly delineated. It is also unclear how this limitation differs from claim 2 and its requirement that the features are at the same position. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 5 recites “a cylinder device that pushes the drawbar toward the tapered hole in the unclamped state.” It is unclear what the unclamped state references. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 6 recites “one pipe end forming one end, and the other pipe end” in Lines 2-3. The scope of “one pipe end forming one end” is unclear. That is, one end forming one end appears redundant and vague. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the other pipe end.” Appropriate correction required.
Claim 6 recites “an other-end air channel that is disposed near the other pipe end and causes air to flow into the pipe air supply channel” in Lines 6-7. The term “near” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” 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. It is also unclear how the channel is deemed to “cause” air to flow into the pipe air supply channel. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 6 recites “an one-end air channel that is disposed near the one pipe end and causes air to flow into the pipe air supply channel” in Lines 9-10. The term “near” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” 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. It is also unclear how the channel is deemed to “cause” air to flow into the pipe air supply channel. The scope of the pipe air supply channel is in question here if the one-end air channel, which causes air to flow radially outward at the one pipe end somehow directs air into the pipe air channel. As disclosed, the air is directed into the annular channel. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 6 recites “outward in the radial direction of the inner pipe” in Lines 10-11. The radial direction of the pipe was previously recited as a direction inward. As such, an outward radial direction of the pipe is a new direction. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 6 recites “a third air supply channel” in Line 15. Yet, there isn’t recitation to first and second air supply channels. As such, it is unclear whether there are first and second air supply channels or not. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 6 recites “a collet sleeve channel serving as the annular channel formed between the main spindle and the collet sleeve, communicates with the plurality of spindle air supply channels on one end, and communicates with the guide sleeve channel on the other end” in Lines 19-23. It is unclear how the collet sleeve annular channel differs from the third air supply channel. It is also unclear to what feature the one end and the other end apply to in the claim. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 6 recites to different channels but it is unclear how the different channels relate to the plurality of spindle air supply channels recited in claim 1. It is also unclear whether the different channels recited are part of the spindle air supply channels or not. Appropriate correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al. (JP 11-33874 A), or alternatively, claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (JP 11-33874 A) in view of Hiyashi et al. (JP 2021-088036 A).
(Claim 1) Yamamoto et al. discloses a spindle device (Figs. 1-5) that includes a spindle housing (inherent); a main spindle (11) rotatably supported by the spindle housing and including one end, an other end, a tapered hole (11c), and a spindle cylindrical portion (portion axially rearward of tapered hole, Figs. 2, 3). The tapered hole being positioned at the one end and to which a tool (15, 16) is removably attached (Figs. 2, 3). The spindle cylindrical portion being positioned between the other end and the tapered hole (Figs. 2, 3). The spindle cylindrical portion communicating with the tapered hole (Figs. 2, 3). A collet chuck (19) is disposed inside the spindle cylindrical portion (Figs. 2, 3) and grips the tool (15, 16). The collet chuck includes one collet end and an other collet end (Figs. 2, 3). A drawbar (13) is disposed inside the spindle cylindrical portion connected to the other collet end of the collet chuck and moves the collet chuck forward and backward along an axial direction of the main spindle (Figs. 2, 3). The collet chuck includes a plurality of claw portions that grips the tool and is arranged in a circumferential direction about a central axis of the main spindle (Fig. 4); a plurality of collet clearances (grooves between claw portions) that extends from one collet end forming one end and having an annular shape toward the other end of the main spindle, forms channels that guide air to the tapered hole, and is each a clearance between claw portions among the plurality of claw portions (Fig. 4), and a collet cam surface (19a). The spindle cylindrical portion has a housing space in which the other collet end is housed in a clamped state (Figs. 2, 3); a defining surface that defines the housing space includes a cam surface (20a) that comes into contact with the collet cam surface when the collet chuck moves forward (Figs. 2, 3). The main spindle includes a plurality of spindle air supply channels (30, 29, 32, 18a) for supplying air to the housing space in an unclamped state (Figs. 3, 5); and the spindle device further includes an annular channel (31) that communicates upstream sides of the plurality of spindle air supply channels (Figs. 2, 3). In the event the inherency of the spindle housing is traversed, provision of the housing would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Hiyashi et al. discloses a spindle housing (11). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the spindle disclosed in Yamamoto et al. with a housing as taught by Hiyashi et al. in order to protect the movable parts within the housing from debris as well as protect an operator from exposure to the rotating shaft.
(Claims 2-4) Yamamoto et al. does not explicitly disclose a relative position of each collet clearance among the plurality of collet clearances with respect to each spindle air supply channel among the plurality of spindle air supply channels is the same; the number of the plurality of collet clearances is the same as the number of the plurality of spindle air supply channels; the plurality of collet clearances is disposed at equal intervals, and the plurality of spindle air supply channels is disposed at equal intervals; and the plurality of spindle air supply channels extends along a radial direction of the main spindle; and phase positions of the plurality of spindle air supply channels and phase positions of the plurality of collet clearances agree with each other. Yet, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the spindle disclosed in Yamamoto et al. with the same number of channels to collet clearances at equal intervals/positions as mere duplication of parts and obvious to try – leading to the predictable result of providing air directly to the passages that lead to the tapered hole. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness); and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960) (holding that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced).
In the alternative, Hiyashi et al. discloses four equi-spaced channels (Figs. 2A, 2B). at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the spindle disclosed in Yamamoto et al. with the same number of channels to collet clearances as suggested by Hiyashi et al. to increase the air flow and at equal intervals/positions as mere duplication of parts and obvious to try – leading to the predictable result of providing air directly to the passages that lead to the tapered hole. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
(Claim 5) A biasing member (springs) that biases the drawbar away from the tapered hole along the axial direction; and a cylinder device (hydraulic cylinder) that pushes the drawbar toward the tapered hole in the unclamped state (Translation ¶ 0007).
(Claim 6) Yamamoto et al. discloses an inner pipe (25) that is disposed inside the drawbar (Figs. 2, 3), and includes one pipe end forming one end, and the other pipe end closer to the other end of the main spindle than the one pipe end (Figs. 2, 3); a pipe air supply (24) that is disposed outside the inner pipe and extends from the one pipe end to the other pipe end; an other-end air channel that is disposed near the other pipe end and causes air to flow into the pipe air supply channel (18a), and through which the air flows inward in a radial direction of the inner pipe (Figs. 2, 3); a one-end air channel (28) that is disposed near the one pipe end and causes air to flow out of the pipe air supply channel, and through which the air flows outward in the radial direction of the inner pipe (Figs. 2, 3); a guide sleeve (18) disposed between the main spindle and the drawbar (Figs. 2, 3); a collet sleeve (20) disposed between the main spindle and the drawbar to adjoin the guide sleeve in the axial direction (Figs. 2, 3); a third air supply channel (31) that is formed by a clearance between the guide sleeve and the drawbar, and communicates with the one-end air channel (Figs. 2, 3); a guide sleeve channel (32) that is formed at one end of the guide sleeve, extends along a radial direction of the guide sleeve, and communicates with the third air supply channel (Figs. 2, 3); a collet sleeve channel (18a) serving as the annular channel that is formed between the main spindle and the collet sleeve communicates with the plurality of spindle air supply channels on one end, and communicates with the guide sleeve channel on the other end; and a coolant channel (27) disposed inside the inner pipe.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Singh Sunil 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.
/RYAN RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
