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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/31/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, lines 1-2 “the internal contour is formed by a dihedron” should be “the internal contour is a dihedron”
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 2 is 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.
The term “a collar-like side wall” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “like” 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. For examining purposes, the examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be “a collar[[-like]] side wall”.
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 (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 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 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blatz (US Pub. No. 2020/0324385).
Regarding claim 1, Blatz discloses: a clamping device (Figures 1-5A elements 10/30 and see also paragraph 0029) for fastening a tool disc (element 300) to a power tool (element 100 and see also paragraph 0029), the clamping device comprising:
a coupling module (elements 4/16) having a first flange (element 4) and an internal contour (element 16); and
a screw (elements 2/3/6/12/14) for screwing into a drive spindle (element 20) of the power tool in order to fasten the tool disc (see paragraphs 0042-0043), the screw being mounted in the coupling module (see figure 4);
the first flange preventing an undesired loosing or tightening of the screw, the clamping device creating a form-fitting fastening of the tool disc to the power tool (Giving that the prior art discloses all structural features of the clamping device including the first flange (element 4) and the screw (elements 2/3/6/12/14 ) operably fastening the tool disc (element 300) to the power tool (element 100) and there no additional structure provided or structural difference, thus the prior art is capable of having the first flange prevent an undesired loosing or tightening of the screw and the clamping device creating a form-fitting fastening of the tool disc to the power tool, as recited.).
Regarding claim 2, Blatz discloses: the clamping device as recited in claim 1 wherein the first flange has an opening (see figure 3 annotated below Detail A), a base surface (see figure 2 annotated below Detail B) and a collar-like side wall (see figure 2 annotated below Detail C).
PNG
media_image1.png
287
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
702
1070
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Blatz discloses: the clamping device as recited in claim 1 wherein the screw has an operating element (element 3), a screw head (element 12), a thread (element 14), and a bearing surface (element 6) for making contact with the first flange (see figure 4 showing the bearing surface in operable contact with the first flange (element 4) when assembled).
Regarding claim 4, Blatz discloses: the clamping device as recited in claim 1 further comprising a second flange (element 30), the second flange, in a fastened state, being arranged between the drive spindle and the tool disc (see paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 5, Blatz discloses: the clamping device as recited in claim 4 wherein the second flange has a bearing surface (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A) and a centering device (Per applicant’s description in paragraph 0040 of the specification, the centering device is to be interpreted to be “the second flange 8 has a central opening which, in the context of the invention, can preferably be referred to as a centering mean 13”, similarly as best shown in figure 1 annotated below, the prior art shows the second flange (element 30) having a central opening (Detail B), thus having a centering device.).
PNG
media_image3.png
814
544
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Blatz discloses: the clamping device as recited in claim 1 wherein the first flange, in a fastened state, is arranged indirectly or directly between the tool disc and the screw (see figure 4 showing the first flange (element 4) in a fastened state and arranged indirectly and directly between portions of both the tool disc (element 300) and screw (elements 2/3/6/12/14)).
Regarding claim 7, Blatz discloses: the clamping device as recited in claim 1 further comprising a circlip (element 8) arranged between the tool disc and the first flange (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 9, Blatz discloses: the clamping device as recited in claim 1 wherein the screw has a protruding region (see figures 2-3 annotated below Detail A) constituting a centering aid (Giving that the prior art discloses all structural features of the clamping device including the screw has the protruding region (Detail A) and there no additional structure provided or structural difference, thus the protruding region would necessarily constitute as a centering aid.).
PNG
media_image4.png
702
958
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Blatz discloses: a power tool (Figures 1-5A element 100 and see also paragraph 0029) comprising:
a drive spindle (element 20); and
the clamping device as recited in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above on pages 3-4);
the drive spindle having, at an end (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A), an internal thread (element 22 and see also paragraph 0031) connectable to the screw of the clamping device in order to fasten the tool disc to the drive spindle of the power tool (see paragraphs 0031/0042).
PNG
media_image5.png
814
542
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Blatz discloses: the power tool as recited in claim 10 wherein the drive spindle is flattened on two sides (see figure 4 annotated below Detail A).
PNG
media_image6.png
783
1030
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Blatz discloses: the power tool as recited in claim 10 wherein the power tool is a cut-off grinder (see paragraph 0018).
Regarding claim 13, Blatz discloses: a method (Figures 1-5A and see also paragraph 0029) for fastening a tool disc (element 300) to a power tool (element 100 and see also paragraph 0029), the method comprising the following method steps:
a) providing the clamping device as recited in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above on pages 3-4); and
b) screwing the screw into the drive spindle of the power tool (see figure 4 and see also paragraph 0031), the screw being led through the internal contour and the first flange and through the tool disc (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 14, Blatz discloses: the method as recited in claim 13 wherein the screw is screwed into an internal thread (element 22) at an end (see figure 4 annotated below Detail A) of the drive spindle (see paragraph 0031).
PNG
media_image7.png
726
1030
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blatz (US Pub. No. 2020/0324385).
Regarding claim 8, Blatz discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 1, but appears to be silent wherein the internal contour is a dihedron.
However, it would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blatz to provide wherein the internal contour is a dihedron, since a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a dihedron internal contour would necessarily allow the device to continue to function as intended in order to be paired positively with the drive spindle for conjoint rotation in the circumferential direction as disclosed by Blatz (see paragraph 0037). Furthermore, the applicant has failed to place any criticality on the claimed dihedron provides any unexpected result indicating simply that “internal contour may in particular be designed as a dihedron” (see specification, paragraph 0039).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM EST.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights