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
This office action is in response to Applicant’s initial application filed 6 November 2024.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds the allowed total of 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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: “a first clamping mechanism” and “a second clamping mechanism” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 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 1 recites the limitation "the spindle cylinder" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the spindle cylinder base part" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the spindle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the inner circumferential surface" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The closest prior art is Kanematsu (US 2012/0087756 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kanematsu discloses a spindle device (figure 9) to be used by mounting a holder 6a for a tool 96a on a spindle leading end (bottom in figure 9), where the holder has a first clamped part 22 and a second clamped part 11 arranged doubly at the inside and the outside on a base part side (top in figure 9) of the holder, the spindle device comprising: a first draw bar 84 having a first clamping mechanism 84b/85b/92b for clamping the first clamped part of the holder on a front end side; and a second draw bar 85 having a second clamping mechanism 85d/90e/92a for clamping the second clamped part of the holder on the front end side, wherein the first draw bar and the second draw bar are arranged in series in the spindle cylinder and are arranged to be capable of advancing and retreating (using push-pull mechanism 9a), the first draw bar is advanced by being pressed in an advancing direction by a pushing means 9a, the second draw bar is advanced by being directly or indirectly pushed by the first draw bar along with the advance of the first draw bar, and when the first draw bar advanced by the pushing means is at a predetermined advanced position, the first clamping mechanism is released, the second clamping mechanism of the second draw bar pushed by the first draw bar is also released, and the first draw bar at the predetermined advanced position and the second draw bar are respectively retreated toward the spindle cylinder base part along with the release of the pressing force of the pushing means, resulting in activation of the first clamping mechanism of the first draw bar and the second clamping mechanism of the second draw bar.
Suffice it to say, the patent to Kanematsu does not disclose “the first draw bar is advanced against a biasing force of a first biasing means by being pressed in an advancing direction by a pushing means, the second draw bar is advanced against a biasing force of a second biasing means by being directly or indirectly pushed by the first draw bar along with the advance of the first draw bar” or “the first draw bar at the predetermined advanced position and the second draw bar are respectively retreated toward the spindle cylinder base part by the biasing forces of the first biasing means and the second biasing means along with the release of the pressing force of the pushing means, resulting in activation of the first clamping mechanism of the first draw bar and the second clamping mechanism of the second draw bar” as claimed in independent claim 1, and as such does not anticipate the instant invention as disclosed in independent claim 1.
Furthermore, there is no combinable teaching in the prior art of record that would reasonably motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to so modify the teachings of Kanematsu, and thus, for at least the foregoing reasoning, the prior art of record does not render obvious the present invention as set forth in independent claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2013/125326 to Kanematsu discloses a spindle device with first and second draw bars and first and second clamping means.
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 10 September 2026
Prosecution Insights