Detailed Action1
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 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.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 1-18 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a pair of claw members pivotable around a fulcrum. In light of Applicant’s disclosure (which teaches each claw member having its own fulcrum), it is unclear if the claim requires each claw member to have a respective fulcrum, or if each claw member can share a fulcrum. For purposes of examination, either interpretation can be used. If Applicant intended on the former interpretation, the examiner recommends amending the claim to recite: a pair of claw members pivotable around respective fulcrums. If Applicant intended on the latter interpretation, the examiner recommends amending the claim to recite: a pair of claw members pivotable around a single fulcrum (however, this language is not illustrated in the drawings and does not seem to be supported by Applicant’s originally filed disclosure).
Claims 2-18 are rejected for depending from claim 1.
Rejections under 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12-15, and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN-216371248-U (“CN248”).
Regarding claim 1, CN248 discloses a tool-gripping member, to be provided in a tool magazine and configured to grip a tool holder that supports a tool (figs. 1 & 5, ¶ [0001], [0023] & [0025], wherein all references to the CN248 specification refer to the machine translation submitted with the IDS filed on February 24, 2026), the tool-gripping member comprising: a base stand (1) configured to be fixed to a magazine base of the tool magazine (figs. 1 & 5, ¶ [0023] & [0025]) and comprising an engaging section (13) with which the tool holder is to be engaged (figs. 1 & 3, ¶ [0024]); and a pair of claw members (2) pivotable around a fulcrum (22) (figs. 1-3, ¶ [0027] & [0030]), the pair of claw members sandwiching and gripping the tool holder in a state where the tool holder is engaged with the engaging section (fig. 3, ¶ [0030]), wherein the engaging section has a groove section (14) extending in a direction perpendicular to an opposing direction in which the pair of claw members face each other and an axial direction of the fulcrum (fig. 1, ¶ [0028], wherein groove 14 extends horizontally when viewing fig. 1—which is perpendicular to the axial direction of pin 22 and the vertical/opposing direction that claw members 2 face each other).
Claim 2 recites the groove section has a predetermined groove width in the opposing direction, and when viewed from one side in the axial direction, the groove section overlaps with a center of the engaging section in the opposing direction. CN248 teaches the groove section 14 overlaps with a center of the engaging section 13 in the vertical/opposing direction, and has a width in the vertical/opposing direction (see fig. 1). One of skill in the art will appreciate that the dimensions of the groove 14 will be predetermined prior to manufacturing the gripping member since the groove must be of a sufficient size to seat block 4 therein. The examiner also notes that since the claim is directed to a product, the structure of the groove 14 merely has to have dimensions that are capable of being predetermined. The groove 14 of CN248 has a width in the vertical/opposing direction that is capable of being predetermined since determining dimensions of parts/elements is routine.
Claim 3 recites the tool holder has a groove section at a predetermined position, and the engaging section has a fitting part configured to fit into the groove section of the tool holder. Since this claim is only directed to the tool gripping member, the tool gripping member merely has to have a fitting part capable of fitting in a groove section of a tool holder. The engaging section 13 of CN248 has a fitting part 4 fit into the groove 14 that is at least capable of fitting into a groove 61 of a tool holder (fig. 1-3, ¶ [0028] & [0030]).
Claim 6 recites the tool-gripping member is for being provided on a machine tool having an axial direction of a spindle extending in a horizontal direction. CN248 teaches the tool gripping member is mounted on a magazine of a CNC machine having a spindle (fig. 6, ¶ [0001]-[0003] & [0030]-[0031]). Thus, the tool gripping member is at least capable of being provided on a machine tool/CNC machine having a spindle extending in a horizontal direction.
Claims 7-9 and 12 recite a tool magazine, comprising: the tool-gripping member according to claims 1-3 and 6. As detailed above, CN248 teaches claims 1-3 and 6. CN248 also teaches the tool gripping member being on a tool magazine (figs. 5 & 6, ¶ [0001]-[0003], [0023], [0025] & [0030]-[0031]).
Claims 13-15 and 18 recite a machine tool, comprising: the tool magazine according to claim 7-9 and 12. As detailed above, CN248 teaches claims 7-9 and 12. CN248 also teaches the magazine being part of a machine tool, i.e. CNC machine, to allow spindle 9 to change tools (fig. 6, ¶ [0001]-[0003] & [0030]-[0031]).
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12-15, and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP-2005271179-A (“JP179”).
Regarding claim 1, JP179 discloses a tool-gripping member (36), to be provided in a tool magazine (33) and configured to grip a tool holder (32) that supports a tool (figs. 1-3, ¶ [0013]-[0014], [0021] & [0023]), the tool-gripping member comprising: a base stand (41) configured to be fixed to a magazine base (35) of the tool magazine (figs. 2-3, ¶ [0013] & [0017]-[0018]) and comprising an engaging section (47) with which the tool holder is to be engaged (fig. 3, ¶ [0018] & [0023]); and a pair of claw members (48) pivotable around a fulcrum (49) (fig. 3, ¶ [0019]), the pair of claw members sandwiching and gripping the tool holder in a state where the tool holder is engaged with the engaging section (fig. 3, ¶ [0023]).
Claim 1 also recites the engaging section has a groove section extending in a direction perpendicular to an opposing direction in which the pair of claw members face each other and an axial direction of the fulcrum. When comparing figs. 3 & 4, one of skill in the art will reasonably infer that element 52 is located in a groove in the engaging section since element 52 is fixed to base 41 via a fastener, and as illustrated in fig. 4 the position of element 52 is within the thickness of base 41. Further, since element 52 extends vertically when viewing fig. 3, the groove will also extend in a vertical direction which is perpendicular to the axial direction of shaft 49 and the horizontal/opposing direction that claw members 48 face each other.
Claim 2 recites the groove section has a predetermined groove width in the opposing direction, and when viewed from one side in the axial direction, the groove section overlaps with a center of the engaging section in the opposing direction. JP179 teaches the groove section overlaps with a center of the engaging section 47 in the horizontal/opposing direction, and has a width in the horizontal/opposing direction (see fig. 3 & ¶ [0021]). One of skill in the art will appreciate that the dimensions of the groove will be predetermined prior to manufacturing the gripping member since the groove must be of a sufficient size to fix element 52 therein. The examiner also notes that since the claim is directed to a product, the structure of the groove merely has to have dimensions that are capable of being predetermined. Since determining dimensions is routine, one of skill in the art will readily appreciate that the width of the groove is capable of being predetermined.
Claim 3 recites the tool holder has a groove section at a predetermined position, and the engaging section has a fitting part configured to fit into the groove section of the tool holder. Since this claim is only directed to the tool gripping member, the tool gripping member merely has to have a fitting part capable of fitting in a groove section of a tool holder. The engaging section 47 has a fitting part 52 that is at least capable of fitting into a groove of the tool holder since it extends from engaging surface 47 towards the tool holder (fig. 3-4, ¶ [0021]).
Claim 6 recites the tool-gripping member is for being provided on a machine tool having an axial direction of a spindle extending in a horizontal direction. JP179 teaches the tool gripping member is mounted on a magazine of a machine tool 11 having a spindle (fig. 1-2, ¶ [0001]-[0003] & [0011]-[0015]). Thus, the tool gripping member is at least capable of being provided on a magazine that is part of a machine tool having a spindle extending in a horizontal direction.
Claims 7-9 and 12 recite a tool magazine, comprising: the tool-gripping member according to claims 1-3 and 6. As detailed above, JP179 teaches claims 1-3 and 6. JP179 also teaches the tool gripping member being on a tool magazine 33 (figs. 1-2, ¶ [0001]-[0003] & [0013]-[0015]).
Claims 13-15 and 18 recite a machine tool, comprising: the tool magazine according to claim 7-9 and 12. As detailed above, JP179 teaches claims 7-9 and 12. JP179 also teaches the magazine being part of a machine tool 11 (fig. 1, ¶ [0001]-[0003] & [0011]-[0015]).
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious3 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 4, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN248 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN-104551807-A (“CN807”).
Regarding claim 4, CN248 fails to explicitly teach a material of the base stand is aluminum. However, this would have been obvious in view of CN807.
CN807 is also directed to a tool clamping device for a tool magazine (fig. 1, ¶ [0001], wherein all references to the CN807 specification refer to the machine translation submitted with the IDS filed on February 24, 2026). CN807 teaches the gripping/clamping base can be made out of aluminum (¶ [0008], [0011] & [0016]).
In this case, each of CN248 and CN807 are directed to gripping/clamping devices for a tool magazine that have a base. CN807 teaches that it is known and predictable for such a gripping/clamping device to have its base formed from aluminum. One of skill in the art appreciates that aluminum is both lightweight and high strength, thus, allowing a reduction in weight as compared to other materials such as steel. Thus, in order to reduce the weight of the magazine/gripping member of CN248, it would be obvious to make at least the base stand out of aluminum.
Claim 10 recites a tool magazine, comprising: the tool-gripping member according to claim 4. As detailed above, CN248 et al. teach claim 4. CN248 also teaches the tool gripping member being on a tool magazine (figs. 5 & 6, ¶ [0001]-[0003], [0023], [0025] & [0030]-[0031]).
Claim 16 recites a machine tool, comprising: the tool magazine according to claim 10. As detailed above, CN248 et al. teaches claim 10. CN248 also teaches the magazine being part of a machine tool, i.e. CNC machine, to allow spindle 9 to change tools (fig. 6, ¶ [0001]-[0003] & [0030]-[0031]).
Claims 5, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN248 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP-2018020388-A (“JP388”).
Regarding claim 5, CN248 fails to explicitly teach a material of the base stand is aluminum die-cast. However, this would have been obvious in view of JP388.
JP388 is directed to a tool holder provided in a tool magazine of an ATC (¶ [0001], wherein all references to the JP388 refer to the machine translation submitted with the IDS filed on December 18, 2024). JP388 teaches the tool holder being made of aluminum die-cast so that the holder is lightweight, high strength, and resistant to damage (¶ [0015] & [0029]).
In this case, each of CN248 and JP388 are directed to a holder provided in a tool magazine of an ATC. JP388 teaches that it is known to form such holders out of aluminum die cast to form holders that are lightweight, high strength, and resistant to damage. Thus, in order to have the benefits taught by JP388, it would be obvious to form the base stand of CN248 out of aluminum die-cast.
Claim 11 recites a tool magazine, comprising: the tool-gripping member according to claim 5. As detailed above, CN248 et al. teach claim 5. CN248 also teaches the tool gripping member being on a tool magazine (figs. 5 & 6, ¶ [0001]-[0003], [0023], [0025] & [0030]-[0031]).
Claim 17 recites a machine tool, comprising: the tool magazine according to claim 11. As detailed above, CN248 et al. teaches claim 11. CN248 also teaches the magazine being part of a machine tool, i.e. CNC machine, to allow spindle 9 to change tools (fig. 6, ¶ [0001]-[0003] & [0030]-[0031]).
Claims 4, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP179 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN807.
Regarding claim 4, JP179 fails to explicitly teach a material of the base stand is aluminum. However, this would have been obvious in view of CN807.
CN807 is also directed to a tool clamping device for a tool magazine (fig. 1, ¶ [0001], wherein all references to the CN807 specification refer to the machine translation submitted with the IDS filed on February 24, 2026). CN807 teaches the gripping/clamping base can be made out of aluminum (¶ [0008], [0011] & [0016]).
In this case, each of JP179 and CN807 are directed to gripping/clamping devices for a tool magazine that have a base. CN807 teaches that it is known and predictable for such a gripping/clamping device to have its base formed from aluminum. One of skill in the art appreciates that aluminum is both lightweight and high strength, thus, allowing a reduction in weight as comparted to other materials such as steel. Thus, in order to reduce the weight of the magazine/gripping member of JP179, it would be obvious to make at least the base stand out of aluminum.
Claim 10 recites a tool magazine, comprising: the tool-gripping member according to claim 4. As detailed above, JP179 et al. teach claim 4. JP179 also teaches the tool gripping member being on a tool magazine (figs. 1-2, ¶ [0001]-[0003] & [0013]-[0015]).
Claim 16 recites a machine tool, comprising: the tool magazine according to claim 10. As detailed above, JP179 et al. teaches claim 10. JP179 also teaches the magazine being part of a machine tool 11 (fig. 1, ¶ [0001]-[0003] & [0011]-[0015]).
Claims 5, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP179 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP388.
Regarding claim 5, JP179 fails to explicitly teach a material of the base stand is aluminum die-cast. However, this would have been obvious in view of JP388.
JP388 is directed to a tool holder provided in a tool magazine of an ATC (¶ [0001], wherein all references to the JP388 refer to the machine translation submitted with the IDS filed on December 18, 2024). JP388 teaches the tool holder being made of aluminum die-cast so that the holder is lightweight, high strength, and resistant to damage (¶ [0015 & [0029]).
In this case, each of JP179 and JP388 are directed to a holder provided in a tool magazine of a tool changer. JP388 teaches that it is known to form such holders out of aluminum die cast to form holders that are lightweight, high strength, and resistant to damage. Thus, in order to have the benefits taught by JP388, it would be obvious to form the base stand of JP179 out of aluminum die-cast.
Claim 11 recites a tool magazine, comprising: the tool-gripping member according to claim 5. As detailed above, JP179 et al. teach claim 5. JP179 also teaches the tool gripping member being on a tool magazine (figs. 1-2, ¶ [0001]-[0003] & [0013]-[0015]).
Claim 17 recites a machine tool, comprising: the tool magazine according to claim 11. As detailed above, JP179 et al. teaches claim 11. JP179 also teaches the magazine being part of a machine tool 11 (fig. 1, ¶ [0001]-[0003] & [0011]-[0015]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Thomas Hong (571-272-0993). 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”
Prosecution Insights