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(b)
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, 8-9, 13, 16, 19, and 20, and those claims depending therefrom, 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 claimed “by at least one connecting element which is configured differently from the at least one drive element” is indefinite for what “configured differently” is trying to claim. It’s unclear what the “configuration” is in terms of structure, and it’s indefinite how to compare “configurations” to determine if they are “configured differently” as required by the claim. Applicant is advised to revise the claim language.
Regarding claims 8-9, 19, and 20, the claims use the term “maximum,” implying a range, but it is indefinite if a range is being claimed (as in from a minimum to a maximum) or if the claim is stating that whatever the value, it cannot exceed that value, such as an angle of 520 degrees. In other words, “limited to an angle of a maximum of 520 degrees” could mean either that the range being claimed is 0 to 520 degrees, or it could mean that the angle does not exceed, or is less than 520 degrees (that it can be 520 at maximum, but not more than 520). For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this as “less than or equal to.”
Regarding claim 13, the claimed “the at least one actuating element” lacks antecedent basis. The “actuating element” appears in claim 5 and 7. However, claim 13 depends only from claim 3. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this claim to depend from claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is to “[a] tool mechanism for a machine tool system,” specifically “a machine tool system according to claim 15.” Ultimately, the claim is only to the tool mechanism, and not to a machine tool system or, specifically, the machine tool system according to claim 15. However, the claim appears to be incorporating the “machine tool system according to claim 15” to incorporate a functional structure such that the functional structure is a structure capable of attaching to the machine tool system. It is indefinite what that functional structure is specifically. For example, an abrasive disk can be considered a tool mechanism and can be attached to many grinders. However, changing the abrasive disk and putting it on a different grinder does not modify structure, akin to intended use claiming. It’s unclear what, then, is required by the claimed structure.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, 10, and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moffat (US-3,623,281).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Moffat (US-3,623,281) discloses a tool receiving device for an arrangement of at least one tool mechanism (50) on a portable machine tool (20), comprising:
at least one receiving unit (32) on which the at least one tool mechanism (50) can be fixed, and
at least one retaining unit (32) rotatably supported on the receiving unit (32) and configured to at least axially fix the tool mechanism (50) on an output unit (shaft 22);
wherein the at least one receiving unit (32) comprises at least one driver element (37) and at least one mounting element (26) which are rotatably connectable to each other with respect to each other by the at least one retaining unit (23) (“with the parts in this position the disk is held in place by being supported between the seating walls 39 and the jaws 31 with a pressure depending upon the force of the spring means 46”) [Moffat; col. 5, lines 13-17], and
wherein the at least one retaining unit (bushing 23) comprises at least one retaining element (threads 24) implemented as a screw connection (threads 24) to the output unit (shaft 22) (“my invention provides a bushing 23 which is threadedly secured to the threaded end of the shaft 22”) [Moffat; col. 3, lines 64-67].
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended), Moffat discloses the tool receiving device according to claim 1, wherein: the output unit (shaft 22) is
configured to be connected to the machine tool (20) (Figs. 1 and 4), and
captively connected to the at least one receiving unit (element 26) and to the at least one retaining unit (bushing 23) (“Upon rotation of the clamping or gripping element 26 relative to the bushing 23, the element 26 will move axially along the bushing”) [Moffat; col. 3, line 75 – col. 4, line 5].
Regarding claim 3 (Currently Amended), Moffat discloses the tool receiving device according to claim 2, wherein the output unit (shaft 22) is captively connected to the at least one receiving unit (element 26) and to the at least one retaining unit (bushing 23) by at least one connecting element (interior threads of bushing 23) which is configured differently from the at least one drive element (37) (“my invention provides a bushing 23 which is threadedly secured to the threaded end of the shaft 22”) [Moffat; col. 3, lines 65-68].
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Moffat discloses the tool receiving device according to claim 2, wherein the output unit (shaft 22) is formed integrally with the at least one drive element (37) (Figs. 1 and 4) (“this motor driving a shaft 22 upon which the fixture of my invention is mounted”) [Moffat; col. 3, lines 59-63].
Regarding claim 6 (Currently Amended), Moffat discloses the tool receiving device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one retaining element (bushing 23) is configured to form a rotary driving surface for the at least one mounting element (26) for rotating the at least one mounting element (26) when the at least one retaining element (bushing 23) is rotated (Figs. 7 and 9 show that the driveshaft is connected to the bushing 23 which rotates the whole receiving device, including the “mounting element” 26, using abutting surfaces of the retaining element 23).
Regarding claim 8 (Currently Amended), Moffat discloses the tool receiving device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one driver element (37) is configured to form at least two stops (Fig. 2) for the at least one mounting element (26) that limit a rotatability of the mounting element (26) relative to the driver element (37) to an angle of a maximum of 45 degrees (does not exceed a maximum of 45 degrees when locked in) (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10 (Currently Amended), Moffat discloses the tool receiving device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one retaining unit (bushing 23) is configured to form a screw head end (30) which has a maximum diameter about an axis of rotation of the at least one retaining element (bushing 23) which is less than a maximum diameter of the at least one mounting element (26) about the axis of rotation (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14 (Currently Amended), Moffat discloses a machine tool having a tool receiving device according to claim 1 (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15 (Currently Amended), Moffat discloses a machine tool system, comprising:
a machine tool (sanding or grinding device 20);
at least one tool mechanism (50), and
a tool receiving device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the at least one retaining unit (bushing 23) is configured to form a screw head end (30) which has a maximum diameter about an axis of rotation of the retaining element (bushing 23) (Fig. 2), which is less than a minimum diameter of a connection opening of the at least one tool mechanism (50) about the axis of rotation (Figs. 4 and 7).
Regarding claim 16 (Currently Amended), Moffat discloses a tool mechanism (50) for a machine tool system according to claim 15 (see claim 15).
Regarding claim 17 (New), Moffat discloses the tool receiving device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one tool mechanism (50) is at least one tool disc (abrasive disk 50).
Regarding claim 18 (New), Moffat discloses the tool receiving device according to claim 1, wherein the portable machine tool (sanding or grinding device) is an angle grinder (grinding device 20 capable of functioning as an angle grinder) (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 19 (New), Moffat discloses the tool receiving device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one driver element (37) is configured to form at least two stops for the at least one mounting element (26) that limit a rotatability of the mounting element (26) relative to the driver element (37) to an angle of a maximum of 42 degrees (does not exceed a maximum of 45 degrees when locked in) (Fig. 2).
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) 5, 7, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffat (US-3,623,281) in view of Nock (US-2007/0007025).
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), Moffat discloses the tool receiving device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one retaining unit (bushing 23) comprises at least one actuating element pivotally connected to the at least one retaining element relative to the at least one retaining element.
However, Nock (US-2007/0007025) teaches wherein at least one retaining unit (shaft 12, head 14, flange 15) comprises at least one actuating element (pivot pin 16, cam 18, cam lever 20) pivotally connected to the at least one retaining element (shaft 12, head 14, flange 15) relative to the at least one retaining element (shaft 12, head 14, flange 15) (“Head 14 is pierced by a pivot pin 16 transverse to the axis of the shaft 12 and includes a flange portion 15 perpendicular to the plane of the blade 60 and axially below the pivot pin.”) [Nock; paragraph 0038]. Since Nock is in the same field of endeavor, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the retaining element of Moffat with the actuating element of Moffat in order to allow for attachment of a blade without the need for hand tools (“Thus, the cam clamp mechanism and the clutch assembly may be employed separately or together to provide a means for holding a rotary tool accessory, such as a circular saw blade, without the need for hand tools.”) [Nock; paragraph 0025].
Regarding claim 7 (Currently Amended), Moffat, as modified by Nock, discloses the tool receiving device according to claim 5, wherein the at least one retaining element (bushing 23 of Moffat) and the at least one actuating element (pivot pin 16, cam 18, cam lever 20, as modified by Nock) are pivotally connected to each other about a pivot axis (of pivot pin 16 of Nock), which is arranged outside of an axis of rotation of the at least one retaining element (the axis of Nock shows the axis of rotation of the retaining element and the pivot axis are not in the same axis of rotation) (Fig. 1 of Nock).
Regarding claim 13 (Currently Amended), Moffat discloses the tool receiving device according to claim [5], but fails to disclose wherein the at least one actuating element is at least partially made of plastic.
However, Moffat teaches that “[a] portion of the supporting hub (32) for convenience of manufacture may be made in the form of a plastic insert” [Moffat; col. 4, lines 15-17]. Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify portions of the tool receiving device, including the at least one actuating element of Moffatt, as modified by Nock, to be at least partially made of plastic for convenience of manufacture [Moffat; col. 4, lines 15-17].
Claim(s) 9, 11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffat (US-3,623,281).
Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended), Moffat discloses the tool receiving device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a rotatability of the at least one retaining element (bushing 23) is limited to an angle of a maximum of 520 degrees.
However, modifying the rotatability of the at least one retaining element would be obvious given that the rotatability of the at least one retaining element relates to how many times the retaining element would have to be rotated in order to be secured (“The threads 24 and 28 are of a sufficiently long pitch that pressure on the element 26 will cause it to rotate and move in an axial direction relative to the shaft 22. Also, rotation of the shaft relative to the element 26 will cause axial movement of the element along the shaft. These threads constitute a means operable upon relative rotation of the supporting means and the shaft or rotary drive element for causing gripping means, to be described shortly, to grip a portion of the disk and hold it securely in place.”) [Moffatt; col. 3, line 75 – col. 4, line 12]. Therefore, it would’ve been obvious optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the number of rotations to be as few as possible, including less than an angle of 520 degrees, while still allowing for proper securing pressure, as taught by Moffatt, in order to make it convenient (quick and easy) to install (“The threads 24 and 28 are of a sufficiently long pitch that pressure on the element 26 will cause it to rotate and move in an axial direction relative to the shaft 22. Also, rotation of the shaft relative to the element 26 will cause axial movement of the element along the shaft. These threads constitute a means operable upon relative rotation of the supporting means and the shaft or rotary drive element for causing gripping means, to be described shortly, to grip a portion of the disk and hold it securely in place.”) [Moffatt; col. 3, line 75 – col. 4, line 12], as less rotations equal quicker and more convenient as is understood in the fastener arts.
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), Moffat discloses the tool receiving device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one retaining element (bushing 23) comprises a thread which has a thread pitch of at least 0.6 mm.
However, Moffatt teaches that the thread pitch is a function of pressure and convenience, meaning that less threads make tightening the retaining element quicker and easier, while too little threads results in insufficient pressure (“The threads 24 and 28 are of a sufficiently long pitch that pressure on the element 26 will cause it to rotate and move in an axial direction relative to the shaft 22. Also, rotation of the shaft relative to the element 26 will cause axial movement of the element along the shaft. These threads constitute a means operable upon relative rotation of the supporting means and the shaft or rotary drive element for causing gripping means, to be described shortly, to grip a portion of the disk and hold it securely in place.”) [Moffatt; col. 3, line 75 – col. 4, line 12]. Therefore, it would’ve been obvious optimization to modify the retaining element of Moffatt to have any thread pitch based on the general conditions disclosed on the prior art, in order to optimize ease and clamping pressure [Moffatt; col. 3, line 75 – col. 4, line 12]. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 20 (New), Moffat discloses the tool receiving device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a rotatability of the at least retaining element (23) is limited to an angle of a maximum of 504 degrees.
However, modifying the rotatability of the at least one retaining element would be obvious given that the rotatability of the at least one retaining element relates to how many times the retaining element would have to be rotated in order to be secured (“The threads 24 and 28 are of a sufficiently long pitch that pressure on the element 26 will cause it to rotate and move in an axial direction relative to the shaft 22. Also, rotation of the shaft relative to the element 26 will cause axial movement of the element along the shaft. These threads constitute a means operable upon relative rotation of the supporting means and the shaft or rotary drive element for causing gripping means, to be described shortly, to grip a portion of the disk and hold it securely in place.”) [Moffatt; col. 3, line 75 – col. 4, line 12]. Therefore, it would’ve been obvious optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the number of rotations to be as few as possible, including less than an angle of 520 degrees, while still allowing for proper securing pressure, as taught by Moffatt, in order to make it convenient (quick and easy) to install (“The threads 24 and 28 are of a sufficiently long pitch that pressure on the element 26 will cause it to rotate and move in an axial direction relative to the shaft 22. Also, rotation of the shaft relative to the element 26 will cause axial movement of the element along the shaft. These threads constitute a means operable upon relative rotation of the supporting means and the shaft or rotary drive element for causing gripping means, to be described shortly, to grip a portion of the disk and hold it securely in place.”) [Moffatt; col. 3, line 75 – col. 4, line 12], as less rotations equal quicker and more convenient as is understood in the fastener arts.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffat (US-3,623,281) in view of Pacheco (US-2011/0012347)
Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended), Moffat discloses the tool receiving device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one retaining element (bushing 23) comprises a thread which has a maximum thread diameter of at least 5.8 mm. However, it is well known in the fastener art to modify a thread diameter to ensure proper strength depending on material and use (see US-2011/00112347, paragraph 0026, where thread diameter is used to increase strength). It therefore would’ve been an obvious design optimization to modify the retaining element to a certain size, including the claim 5.8 mm or more, in order to accommodate the general conditions known in the art which are that increasing the size increases strength, but increasing size also increases weight, cost, and power needed to rotate it [US-2011/0112347; paragraph 0014].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO-2018/110856A1, WO2020009305A1, US-20150209975, US-20020030328, US-20130082449, US-20240246189, and US-20210205944 are pertinent to claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 5:30.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-270-5947. 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.
/JOEL D CRANDALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights