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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, drawn to a “tool holder locking sleeve” in the reply filed on September 1, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “it should be no undue burden on the Examiner to consider all claims in the single application”.
However, this is not found persuasive. Note that the present application is a national stage application submitted under 35 USC 371 (noting the “Notice of Acceptance of Application Under 35 USC 371 and 37 CFR 1.495”, Form 903, mailed April 21, 2025), rather than an application filed under 35 USC 111(a), such that the burden requirement discussed in M.P.E.P. § 803 is not required in order to establish lack of unity. Attention is particularly directed to MPEP section 801, which states that Chapter 800 of the MPEP “is limited to a discussion of the subjects of restriction and double patenting under Title 35 of the United States Code and Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations as it relates to national applications filed under 35 USC 111(a)” and that “[T]he discussion of unity of invention under the Patent Cooperation Treaty Articles and rules as it is applied as an International Searching Authority, International Preliminary Examining Authority, and in applications entering the National Stage under 35 USC 371 as a Designated or Elected Office in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is covered in MPEP Chapter 1800”. There is nothing in Chapter 1800 of the MPEP (or anywhere else) requiring that a burden must be established in order to establish a lack of unity of invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on September 1, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 4 (see page 7, the paragraph beginning “[I]n the drawings:…”; the paragraph spanning pages 8-9; the paragraph spanning pages 9-10; and the first full paragraph on page 10, for example). 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. 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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
the “pin” of claims 1 and 3.
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.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“pulling claw installation portion” in claims 1, 7, and 8, for example;
“pulling claw connection portion” in claims 3-4.
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.
It is noted that the term “pulling claw installation portion” does not invoke 35 USC 112(f) in claim 2 because the claim recites sufficient structure (“wherein the tool sleeve is a sleeve structure with an open end and a blind end, …the blind end is the pulling claw installation portion…”) to perform the claimed function.
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 2-8 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.
In claim 2, line 4, the limitation “the pulling claw installation opening” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim, noting that no such opening was previously recited, nor is such inherent.
In claim 5, the claim (as amended 10/17/2024) appears to say “[T]he tool holder locking sleeve according to 4 claim 1”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what effect the number “4” is intended to have on the scope of the claim.
In claim 6, the claim sets forth “wherein an end of the tool holder clamping portion is also provided with a guiding surface”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what effect the term “also” is intended to have on the scope of the claim, i.e., merely indicating that the end of the tool holder clamping portion is provided with a guiding surface; indicating that, in addition to any other limitations already set forth on the tool holder clamping portion, an end of the tool holder clamping portion is provided with a guiding surface; vs. indicating that an end of the tool holder clamping portion is provided with a guiding surface, as is some other unspecified-in-the-claim element/structure. To the extent that “also” is intended to mean that some other element (additional to an end of the tool holder clamping portion) “also” has a guiding surface, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what other element is being set forth as “also” having a guiding surface. A similar lack of clarity arises, mutatis mutandis, regarding the limitation “wherein one end inside the tool holder accommodating cavity near the pulling claw installation is also fixed with a tool holder positioning key…” in claim 7, and regarding the limitation “wherein the end inside the tool holder accommodating cavity near the pulling claw installation is also fixed with a cylindrical pin” in claim 8.
In claim 7, the claim sets forth “wherein one end inside the tool holder accommodating cavity near the pulling claw installation is also fixed with a tool holder positioning key…” However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim to what the “one end” belongs, i.e., wherein one end of what inside the tool holder accommodating cavity…is also fixed with a tool holder positioning key?
The term “near” in claims 7-8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim(s), 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. In particular, it is unclear as set forth in the claims how close the claimed elements must be in order to be considered “near”, vs. how far apart the claimed elements must be in order to be excluded by the term “near”.
The term “high” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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. In particular, it is unclear as set forth in the claim how “high” a given key groove must be in order to meet the limitation “high key groove” vs. how low a given key groove must be in order to be excluded by the term. Such lack of clarity is especially compounded by the fact that the disclosed “high” key groove 70 is shown in Figure 13 as being lower than the disclosed “low” key groove 71. See also pages 13-14 of the present specification.
The term “low” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” 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. In particular, it is unclear as set forth in the claim how “low” a given key groove must be in order to meet the limitation “low key groove” vs. how high a given key groove must be in order to be excluded by the term. Such lack of clarity is especially compounded by the fact that the disclosed “high” key groove 70 is shown in Figure 13 as being lower than the disclosed “low” key groove 71. See also pages 13-14 of the present specification.
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.
Claims 1-7, any of which were rejected under 35 USC 112 above are as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 203003567 U (hereinafter, “CN ‘567”).
It is noted that a translation of CN ‘567 was made of record on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) mailed July 30, 2026. That said, attention is directed to that machine translation regarding any references herein to page numbers, line numbers, paragraph numbers, or the like, re CN ‘567.
Note that CN ‘567 teaches a tool holder locking sleeve, comprising:
a tool sleeve (1; see Figures 1 and 4, noting that sleeve 1 receives tool holder 2; see also paragraph 0041, for example);
a pulling claw (3) (see Figures 1 and 3-4, as well as paragraph 0041, for example);
an elastic component (spring 3-20; see Figures 1-4 and at least paragraphs 0036 and 0042, for example); and
a pin (1-3; see Figures 1 and 3-4, as well as at least paragraphs 0036 and 0041, for example), wherein
the tool sleeve (1) is provided with a tool holder accommodating cavity (in which the tool holder 2 is accommodated; see Figures 1 and 3-4, as well as at least paragraph 0041), one end (left end re Figures 1, 3, and 4) of the tool holder accommodating cavity is provided with a tool holder installation opening (the opening in the left end of the cavity of the sleeve 1; see Figures 1, 3, and 4) for inserting or pulling out a tool holder (2) (see Figures 1, 3-4, and paragraphs 0036, 0041, and 0026-0027, for example) and another end (such as the right end re Figures 1, 3, and 4) of the tool holder accommodating cavity is provided with a pulling claw installation portion for installing the pulling claw (3) (see Figures 1 and 3-4),
one end of the pulling claw (3) is a tool holder clamping portion (3-1) (see Figures 1, 3, and 4, and particularly Figure 4), another end of the pulling claw is a pulling claw driving portion (3-3) (see Figures 1, 3, and 4, as well as at least paragraphs 0036, 0041, for example), the tool holder clamping portion (3-1) is provided with a tool holder clamping surface (see Figure 4), the pulling claw (3) is hinged on the pulling claw installation portion (of 1) through the pin (1-3) (see Figures 1, 3, and 4, as well as at least paragraphs 0036 and 0041, for example), the tool holder clamping portion (3-1) is placed inside the tool holder accommodating cavity (see Figures 1, 3, and 4), and the pulling claw driving portion (3-3) is placed outside the tool holder accommodating cavity (see Figures 1, 3, and 4, for example),
the elastic component (3-20) connects the pulling claw (3) and the pulling claw installation portion (of sleeve 1) (see Figures 1, 3, and 4), and after the tool holder (2) is inserted into the tool holder accommodating cavity (of sleeve 1) from the (aforedescribed) tool holder installation opening, a restoring force of the elastic component (3-20) drives the pulling claw (3) to rotate around the pin (1-3) so that the tool holder clamping portion (3-1) is engaged into an inner diameter of the tool holder (2) to achieve an engagement (as shown in Figure 4) of the tool holder clamping surface (of 3-1) with the inner diameter of the tool holder (2) (see Figures 3-4; see also paragraphs 0036, 0041-0042, for example), and
when an external force (provided by cylinder system 4) drives the pulling claw driving portion (3-3) to rotate the pulling claw (3) around the pin (1-3) (as shown in Figure 3; see also paragraphs 0036 and 0041), the tool holder clamping portion (3-1) is separated from the inner diameter of the tool holder (2) (as can be seen in Figure 3; compare Figures 3 and 4, and see also paragraphs 0036 and 0041, for example).
Regarding claim 2, the tool sleeve (1) is a sleeve structure with an open end (left end re Figure 1) and a blind end (right end re Figure 1), the open end is the tool holder installation opening (see Figures 1 and 3-4), the blind end is the pulling claw installation portion (see Figures 1 and 3-4), the pulling claw installation portion is provided with the pulling claw installation opening (see 1-2 in Figures 1 and 3-4; see also at least paragraphs 0036 and 0041, for example), and the pulling claw (3) is placed in the pulling claw installation opening (1-2) and hinged (via pin 1-3) with the blind end (see Figures 1 and 3-4, as well as at least paragraphs 0036 and 0041, for example).
Regarding claim 3, “an” angle between the tool holder clamping portion (3-1) and the pulling claw driving portion (3-3) is less than or equal to 90° (it is noted that this limitation is sufficiently broad as to encompass a number of configurations, particularly noting that each of the tool holder clamping portion and pulling claw driving portion can be considered to be three-dimensional objects with an infinite number of axes that extend in an infinite number of directions extending therethrough; the following is merely intended to be but one such example to demonstrate that CN ‘567 teaches the limitation, though it is not considered to be the only way in which the tool holder clamping portion and pulling claw driving portion can be considered to have an angle therebetween that is less than or equal to 90o; that said, particular attention is directed to the angle labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 1 below as A1, which is an angle between a surface of the tool holder clamping portion 3-1 and a surface of the pulling claw driving portion 3-3, for example), a pulling claw connection portion (such as a portion of pulling claw 3 in which the opening for receiving the hinge member 1-3 is located; see Figure 1, for example) is provided “between” (such as “between” in the left/right horizontal direction re Figure 1) the tool holder clamping portion (3-1) and the pulling claw driving portion (3-3), and the (aforedescribed) pulling claw connection portion is hinged with the (aforedescribed) pulling claw installation portion through the pin (1-3) (see Figures 1-4 and at least paragraphs 0036 and 0041, for example).
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (A1)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
404
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, a “side” of the tool holder clamping portion (3-1) opposite to the (aforedescribed) pulling claw connection portion is a “pulling claw limiting portion”, the pulling claw limiting portion is provided with a limiting opening (in or in line with which 3-22 is provided), and when the pulling claw (3) is placed in the pulling claw installation opening (1-2) and (3 is) installed on the (aforedescribed) pulling claw installation portion (i.e., the blind end of the sleeve structure of the sleeve), the limiting opening is (at least ultimately) engaged (via intervening structure) into a blind end wall of the tool sleeve (1). See Figures 1 and 3-4.
Regarding claim 5, “a” length (such as L1, labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 1 below) of the pulling claw driving portion (3-3) is greater than “a” length (such as length L2, labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 1 below) of the tool holder clamping portion (3/1). Such is but one example of a way in which claim 5 is met by CN ‘567.
[AltContent: textbox (L2)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (L1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
404
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, an end of the tool holder clamping portion (3/1) is also provided with a guiding surface (such as the surface labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 4 as “GS”, for example, which surface is guided/pressed against a surface of the tool holder 2).
[AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
420
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (GS)]
Regarding claim 7, one end inside the (aforedescribed) tool holder accommodating cavity “near” the (aforedescribed) pulling claw installation portion is “also” fixed with a tool holder positioning key (5; see Figures 5-6, as well as paragraph 0045, noting that paragraph 0045 expressly says that all other structures beyond the positioning spline 1-4 and the positioning key 5 are identical to the embodiment 1 of Figures 1-4), and after the tool holder (2) is inserted into the (aforedescribed) tool holder accommodating cavity from the (aforedescribed) tool holder installation opening, the tool holder positioning key (5) is inserted into a “high” key groove (i.e., the groove in 2 in which 5 is received, shown in Figure 6) of the tool holder (2) (see Figure 6 and paragraphs 0045, 0036, for example).
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 8, as best understood in view of the above rejection(s) based on 35 USC 112, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 203003567 U (hereinafter, “CN ‘567”), as applied to at least claims 1 and 7 above
CN ‘567 teaches all the aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were described in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
However, regarding claim 8, CN ‘567 does not teach “wherein the end inside the tool holder accommodating cavity near the pulling claw installation portion is also fixed with a cylindrical pin, the cylindrical pin is set opposite to the tool holder positioning key, and after the tool holder is inserted into the tool holder accommodating cavity from the tool holder installation opening, the cylindrical pin is placed in a low key groove of the tool holder and contacts a bottom surface of the low key groove”, as set forth in claim 8.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of two opposing slots or keyways or “grooves” in taper-shank type tool holders (for machine tools), each for receiving a respective key such as a cylindrical pin, is well-known and widely used in machine tools for the purpose of facilitating the appropriate alignment and orientation of the tool holder with the tool storage magazine and with the tool head that is to receive the tool holder from the tool storage magazine.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the tool holder with a further (“low”) “key” groove, opposite the (“high”) key groove (receiving key 5) taught by CN ‘567, and to have further provided the cylindrical pin, located as set forth in claim 8, for being received in (and contacting a “bottom” surface of) the “low” key groove, as is well-known, for the purpose of further facilitating the appropriate alignment and orientation of the tool holder with the tool storage magazine and with the tool head that is to receive the tool holder from the tool storage magazine, as is well-known.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,018,265 teaches a tool holder locking device with a claw.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA E CADUGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 5:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and via 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, Sunil K Singh 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.
/ERICA E CADUGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
eec
September 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights