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 .
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-3, drawn to a tool for a tool holder rotor.
Group II, claims 4-13, drawn to a tool holder rotor.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Group I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a tool having a slot, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Willibald (DE102007043687A1), hereinafter “Willibald”.
Willibald discloses a tool (Fig. 6, Element 30) having slot (Fig. 6, Element 40).
During a telephone conversation with Attorney John Luce on June 15th, 206 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group II, claims 4-13, drawn to a tool holder rotor. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-3 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 19th. 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "wherein one of the at least three partitions which is received by the slot of the tool body ends with a surface which extends parallel to a receptacle of a cylindrical tool holder rotor body" (Claim 13, Lines 2-4) must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
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.
The drawings, specifically Fig. 7, are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 206. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to because:
In Fig. 8, Element 204 (see annotated Fig. 8 below) should be Element 202 (see Spec - Page 8, Lines 24-31)
PNG
media_image1.png
158
306
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 8
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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. The current abstract is drawn to the tool for the tool holder rotor.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the present abstract filed on contains reference numbers "()". It is suggested that the reference numbers "()" are removed. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Rotor for a commuting machine for towed agricultural or forestry machine”
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 has been cancelled. Thus, “according to the characterizing part of claim 1” in Page 5 (Line 13) requires correction.
Page 7 (Line 19): “a series of walls 102” should read --a series of partitions 102-- to be consistent with the language in the claims or --a series of walls/partition walls-- such as in the Spec (Page 9, Line 27).
Page 7 (Line 21): “the walls 102” should read --the partitions 102-- to be consistent with the language in the claims or --the walls/partition walls 102-- such as in the Spec (Page 9, Line 27).
Page 7 (Line 24 and Lines 28-29), Page 8 (Line 22), and Page 9 (Line 17): “the wall 102” should read --the partition 102-- to be consistent with the language in the claims or --the wall/partition wall 102-- such as in the Spec (Page 9, Line 27).
Page 9 (Line 9): “The wall 102” should read --The partition 102-- to be consistent with the language in the claims or --The wall/partition wall 102-- such as in the Spec (Page 9, Line 27).
Page 8 (Line 7 and 15-16): “a wall 102” should read --a partition 102-- to be consistent with the language in the claims or --a wall/partition wall 102-- such as in the Spec (Page 9, Line 27).
Page 7 (Line 25) and Page 8 (Line 17): “a seat 100” should read --a housing 110-- to be consistent with the language in the claims and the Spec (Page 9, Line29).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“two tools” in Line 2 should read --two of the series of tools--
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.
Claim 4-13 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 4 recites the limitation "the outer surface" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the tool" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, “the tool” is interpreted as “the series of tools”.
Claims 5-13, which depend on Claim 4, is equally rejected.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the tool" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, “the tool” is interpreted as “the series of tools”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the tool is a tool according to claim 1” in Line 2. Claim 1 has been cancelled, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For purpose of examination, Claim 5 is interpreted as “The tool holder rotor according to claim 4, wherein the tool is a tool for a tool holder rotor with a tool body on which a cutting edge is positioned in the upper front central part and the tool body wherein at least two partition walls form a channel and the tool body has a central slot in the direction of rotation of the tool for insertion on one of the partition walls and a through hole for fastening the tool to a tool holder housing arranged on the rear of the tool holder rotor or directly on the tool holder rotor, and wherein the tool with its body takes un the entire width of the channel.
Claim 5 recited the limitation “at least two partition walls” in Line 3 (see above). It is unclear is this is referring to the partitions of Claim 4 or to an additional element. For purpose of examination, “at least two partition walls” is being interpreted as “at least two partitions”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “in the direction of rotation of the tool” in Line 4 (see above). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the rear” in Line 5 (see above). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the tools" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, “the tools” is interpreted as “the series of tools”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the tool width" in Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the width" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the tool" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, “the tool” is interpreted as “the series of tools”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the tool" in Line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, “the tool” is interpreted as “the series of tools”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the partition” in Line 2. There are at least three partitions. It is unclear what partition is being referred to, thus rendering the claim indefinite because the metes and bounds have not been established.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the tool" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, “the tool” is interpreted as “the series of tools”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the shape” in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the tool body" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4, 6, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seppi (WO2020216700A1), hereinafter "Seppi" in view of Willibald (DE102007043687A1), hereinafter "Willibald". For text citation of Seppi and Willibald refer to the machine translations provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 4, Seppi discloses A tool holder rotor (Fig. 1, Element 100) for chopping machines (¶0012, Lines 1-3) consisting of a cylindrical body (see annotated Fig. 1 of Seppi reproduced below) on the outer surface (see annotated Fig. 1 of Seppi reproduced below) of which at least three partitions (Fig. 1, Elements 101 and 104) are positioned, which form channels (Fig. 1, Element 105), a series of tools (Fig. 1, Element 103) are positioned on the tool holder rotor (Fig. 1) and one of the series of tools (see 1st annotated Fig. 3 of Seppi reproduced below) with its body (see 1st annotated Fig. 3 of Seppi reproduced below) occupying an entire width of one of the channels (see 1st annotated Fig. 3 of Seppi reproduced below).
Seppi fails to disclose the tool having a slot in a front part into which one of the partitions is inserted.
Nonetheless, Willibald teaches a tool (Fig. 6, Element 30) having a slot (Fig. 6, Element 40) in a front part (see annotated Fig. 6 of Willibald reproduced below) into which one of the partitions (Fig. 1, Element 11) is inserted (¶0038).
Seppi and Willibald are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of tool holder rotors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Wllibald and add a slot in a front part of the tool into which one of the partitions is inserted into the tool holder rotor disclosed by Seppi to avoid or significantly reduced (¶0005) the disadvantages of the tools arranged in a pocket of the rotor (as is the case of the series of tools of the tool holder rotor of Seppi) including the instability in the tool holder rotor caused by this design and the high manufacturing costs (¶0003).
PNG
media_image2.png
655
736
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Seppi
PNG
media_image3.png
644
672
media_image3.png
Greyscale
1st annotated Fig. 3 of Seppi
PNG
media_image4.png
540
440
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6 of Willibald
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art combination of Seppi and Willibald renders the tool holder rotor as claimed in Claim 4 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Seppi and Willibald further teaches wherein the tools (Seppi - Fig. 1, Element 103) are arranged laterally offset (see 2nd annotated Fig. 3 of Seppi reproduced below) from one another by half the tool width (see 2nd annotated Fig. 3 of Seppi reproduced below) plus the width of one of the at least three partitions (see 2nd annotated Fig. 3 of Seppi reproduced below).
PNG
media_image5.png
647
813
media_image5.png
Greyscale
2nd annotated Fig. 3 of Seppi
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art combination of Seppi and Willibald renders the tool holder rotor as claimed in Claim 4 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Seppi and Willibald further teaches wherein a positive connection (see annotated Fig. 1 of Willibald reproduced below) is realized between the partition (Willibald - Fig. 1, Element 11; Seppi - Fig. 1, Element 101 and 104) and the tool (Willibald - Fig. 1, Element 10; Seppi - Fig. 1, Element 103 (by means of the slot 40)).
PNG
media_image6.png
424
364
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Willibald
Regarding Claim 9, the prior art combination of Seppi and Willibald renders the tool holder rotor as claimed in Claim 4 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Seppi and Willibald further teaches wherein two tools (see 2nd annotated Fig. 3 of Seppi reproduced above) are partially arranged (see 2nd annotated Fig. 3 of Seppi reproduced above) in one of the channels (see 2nd annotated Fig. 3 of Seppi reproduced above).
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art combination of Seppi and Willibald renders the tool holder rotor as claimed in Claim 4 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Seppi and Willibald further teaches wherein the slot (Willibald - Fig. 6, Element 40) and a back surface (see annotated Fig. 3 of Willibald; see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Seppi reproduced above) of the tool (Willibald - Fig. 1, Element 10; Seppi - Fig. 1, Element 103) are shaped such that they form a positive connection (see annotated Fig. 1 of Willibald reproduced above; see annotated Fig. 3 of Willibald reproduced below) with the tool holder (Willibald - ¶0031, Lines 1-2 (by means of Element 11)) and one of the at least three partitions (Willibald - Fig. 1, Element 11; Seppi - Fig. 1, Elements 101 and 104).
Examiner Note: For clarification, it is understood that by adding the through hole defining the slot 40 of Willibald to the series of tools 103 of Seppi, the back surface of the series of tools 103 are also shaped such that they form a positive connection with the tool holder and one of the at least three partitions.
PNG
media_image7.png
350
325
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Willibald
Regarding Claim 11, the prior art combination of Seppi and Willibald renders the tool holder rotor as claimed in Claim 4 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Seppi and Willibald further teaches wherein one of the series of tools (Seppi - Fig. 1, Element 103) in one of the channels (Seppi - Fig. 1, Element 105) is shaped so that sides of the tool (see 2nd annotated Fig. 3 of Seppi reproduced above) form a radially deflecting shape (see 2nd annotated Fig. 3 of Seppi reproduced above; Seppi - ¶0026, Lines 12-18), whereby material is conveyed or squeezed (Seppi -¶0034-0036) against counter-blades (Seppi - ¶0036, Element 202a) which are mounted (Seppi - Fig. 5, by means of Element 202) on a frame (see annotated Fig. 5 of Seppi reproduced below) which receives the tool holder rotor (see annotated Fig. 5 of Seppi reproduced below).
PNG
media_image8.png
633
604
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 of Seppi
Regarding Claim 12, the prior art combination of Seppi and Willibald renders the tool holder rotor as claimed in Claim 4 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Seppi and Willibald further teaches wherein one of the series of tools (see annotated Fig. 1 of Seppi reproduced below) rests radially (see annotated Fig. 1 of Seppi reproduced above) on the tool holder rotor (see annotated Fig. 1 of Seppi reproduced above) and thus adapts to the shape (see annotated Fig. 1 of Seppi reproduced above) of the cylindrical tool holder rotor body (see annotated Fig. 1 of Seppi reproduced above) which is cylindrical (see annotated Fig. 1 of Seppi reproduced above).
Regarding Claim 13, the prior art combination of Seppi and Willibald renders the tool holder rotor as claimed in Claim 4 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Seppi and Willibald further teaches wherein one of the at least three partitions (Willibald - Fig. 1, Element 11; Seppi - Fig. 1, Elements 101 and 104) which is received by the slot (Willibald- Fig. 6, Element 40) of the tool body (Willibald - Fig. 6, Element 10; Seppi, Fig. 1, Element 103) ends with a surface (see 1st annotated Fig. 3 of Seppi reproduced bellow) which extends parallel (Seppi - Fig. 2) to a receptacle (Seppi - Fig. 2, Element 103a) of a cylindrical tool holder rotor body (Seppi - Fig. 1, Element 100).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seppi in view of Willibald as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Gaudreault (US20130099039A1), hereinafter "Gaudreault".
Regarding Claim 5, the prior art combination of Seppi and Willibald renders the tool holder rotor as claimed in Claim 4 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Seppi and Willibald further teaches wherein the tool (Seppi - Fig. 1, Element 103) is a tool for a tool holder rotor (Seppi - Fig. 1, Element 100) with a tool body (see 1st annotated Fig. 3 of Seppi reproduced above) on which a cutting edge (Seppi - Fig. 3, Element 102; Seppi - ¶0026, Lines 14-15) is positioned in the upper front central part (see 1st annotated Fig. 3 of Seppi reproduced above; Seppi - ¶0026, Line 12) and the tool body (see 1st annotated Fig. 3 of Seppi reproduced above) wherein at least two partition walls (see 1st annotated Fig. 3 of Seppi reproduced above) form a channel (see 1st annotated Fig. 3 of Seppi reproduced above) and the tool body (see 1st annotated Fig. 3 of Seppi reproduced above) has a central slot (Willibald - Fig. 6, Element 40) in the direction of rotation of the tool (Willibald -Fig. 2, Element D; see annotated Fig. 1 of Seppi reproduced above) for insertion on one of the partition walls (Willibald - Fig. 1, Element 11; Seppi - Fig. 1, Elements 101 and 104), and wherein the tool with its body (see 1st annotated Fig. 3 of Seppi reproduced above) takes un the entire width of the channel (see 1st annotated Fig. 3 of Seppi reproduced above).
The prior art combination of Seppi and Willibald fails to teach and a through hole for fastening the tool to a tool holder housing arranged on the rear of the tool holder rotor or directly on the tool holder rotor.
Nonetheless, Gaudreault teaches a through hole (Fig. 4B, Element 232) for fastening the tool (Fig. 4B, Element 90; ¶0087, Lines 1-4) to a tool holder housing (Fig. 3, Element 52) arranged on the rear of the tool holder rotor or directly on the tool holder rotor (Fig. 3, Element 24).
Seppi, Willibald, and Gaudreault are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of tool holder rotors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Gaudreault of using a through hole for fastening the tool to a tool holder housing arranged on the rear of the tool holder rotor or directly on the tool holder rotor into the tool holder rotor disclosed by Seppi and modified by Willibald to provide a mounting assembly to securely hold the tool (¶0087, Lines 1-4).
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art combination of Seppi and Willibald renders the tool holder rotor as claimed in Claim 4 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Seppi and Willibald fails to teach wherein the tool is fastened by means of a screw to a tool holder housing located on the tool holder rotor or directly to a body of the tool holder rotor.
Nonetheless, Gaudreault teaches wherein the tool is fastened (Fig. 4B, Element 90; ¶0087, Lines 1-4) by means of a screw (Fig. 4B, Element 232) to a tool holder housing (Fig. 3, Element 52) located on the tool holder rotor () or directly to a body (Fig. 3, Element 40) of the tool holder rotor (Fig. 3, Element 24).
Seppi, Willibald, and Gaudreault are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of tool holder rotors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Gaudreault wherein the tool is fastened by means of a screw to a tool holder housing located on the tool holder rotor or directly to a body of the tool holder rotor into the tool holder rotor disclosed by Seppi and modified by Willibald to provide a mounting assembly to securely hold the tool (¶0087, Lines 1-4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20120067188A1 & US20140217220A1 - Tool holder rotor
US7967044B2 - Tool for a tool holder rotor with removable connection means
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALONDRA MICHELLE ORTIZ-ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9539. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5PM ET.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/A.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights