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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, Species A, claims 1-2, 5-12, and 14 in the reply filed on 10 September 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no burden on the Examiner to examine the unelected invention/species. This is not found persuasive because the Requirement for Unity of Invention mailed 16 July 2026 was based on the rules of 37 CFR 1.475(a), which does not require the showing of a serious burden, but instead requires a special technical feature that defines a contribution in each of the claimed inventions.
As the groups of inventions lack the same or corresponding special technical features as set forth in the office action, the groups of inventions do not relate to a single general inventive concept.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3-4, 13, and 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10 September 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because reference labels 23a/23b/23c/23d do not correspond correctly to the usage of these labels in the specification. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 6, the word “arranges” should be changed to “arranged”.
In claim 1, line 7, the word “defined” should be changed to “defines”.
In claim 1, line 11, the phrase “wherein a first position” should be changed to “wherein in a first position”.
In claim 2, line 3, the word “past” should be changed to “along” to correspond to the specification.
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 1-2, 5-12, and 14 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 claims 1 and 6, the term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is noted that the term “preferably” is also cited in non-elected claims 4, 16, and 18.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a locking pin bore, which is arranges tangentially in the base body”. It is unclear from this limitation which element in the base body is tangential to the locking pin bore.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a third stop surface”. However, there is no first stop surface or second stop surface recited in parent claim 1, making it unclear whether the first and second stop surfaces are required by the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a fourth stop surface”. However, there is no first stop surface, second stop surface, or third stop surface recited in parent claim 1, making it unclear whether the first, second, and third stop surfaces are required by the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "a stop means opening which is adapted to the second stop means in the base body". It is unclear from this limitation how the stop means opening is adapted to the second stop means.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koniger et al. (US 3,954,276).
Regarding claim 1, Koniger et al. discloses a clamping component 11 for a tool holder for clamping tools 13, preferably tools for machining workpieces with rotating tools, comprising: a base body 40, which has an outer surface and a cylindrical tool receiving bore 12, arranged concentrically to the outer surface, with a locking pin bore 19, which is arranged tangentially in the base body and defines an overlapping area by overlapping with the tool receiving bore, a moveable locking pin 20, with a first end 24 and a second end 26 and a tool retaining area 20a, arranged between the first end and the second end, wherein in a first position of the locking pin (see figure 6), defined by a first stop means 60, the tool retaining area is arranged in the overlapping area, wherein the locking pin is held at both ends within the locking pin bore of the clamping component on both sides of the overlapping area (see figure 6), and wherein, in a second position of the locking pin (see figure 7), defined by a second stop means 70, the first end is arranged outside and the second end is arranged at least partially inside the locking pin bore of the clamping component, but outside of the overlapping area (see figure 7).
Regarding claim 2, Koniger et al. discloses wherein the locking pin 20 has a recess 28 along a central axis of the locking pin, which defines at least one surface past which the second stop means 70 slides when the locking pin moves.
Regarding claim 5, Koniger et al. discloses wherein the recess 28 of the locking pin 20 is arranged on a side (the recess 28 is arranged 360 degrees around the locking pin, and therefore is partly arranged on the side of the locking pin facing away from part of the tool retaining area) of the locking pin facing away from the tool retaining area 20a.
Regarding claim 8, Koniger et al. discloses wherein a third stop surface 72 is formed at the second end 26 of the locking pin 20 and bears against the first stop means 60, when the locking pin is in the first position (“The other open end 22 is blocked due to the fact that the leaf spring 60 overlies it, and the stud 20 is therefore reliably retained in the transverse bore 19.”, such that the surface 72 is capable of bearing against the spring 60 in the first position).
Regarding claim 9, Koniger et al. discloses wherein the first stop means 60 is a fourth stop surface 60, which is formed in an end region 22 of the locking pin bore 19 and against which the second end 26 of the locking pin 20 bears when the locking pin is in the first position.
Regarding claim 10, Koniger et al. discloses wherein the locking pin bore 19 is adjoined by a pushout bore 54, through which the locking pin 20 is ejectable (using tool 18).
Regarding claim 11, Koniger et al. discloses wherein the second stop means 70 is pressed into a stop means opening 70 which is adapted to the second stop means in the base body 40 of the clamping component 11.
Regarding claim 12, Koniger et al. discloses wherein the second stop means 70 is formed as a slotted link 63.
Regarding claim 14, Koniger et al. discloses wherein the tool retaining area 20a of the locking pin 20 is engageable in the overlapping area with a shank groove 15 of a tool shank 14 of a tool 13 inserted into the tool receiving bore 12, when the locking pin is in the first position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee (US 5,193,419) discloses a clamping component with a locking pin.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANDREW GATES whose telephone number is (571)272-5498. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-6, Alt Fr 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil Singh, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC A. GATES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722 8 October 2026
Prosecution Insights