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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR
1.55.
Examiner’s Comments
This office action is in response to the application filed on 11/5/2025.
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/23/2025 is in
compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In specification page 13, line 7, “montage positive-locking element” needs to be -- mounting positive-locking element--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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 1-5 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Maute et al. (US 9387570) hereinafter (Maute).
With regard to claim 1, Maute discloses a tool clamping device (122a) for an oscillating multifunction tool (12a), comprising: at least one tool mounting unit (16a); at least one actuation unit (rapid clamping elements, fastening elements actuable without a tool, for fastening a machining tool to and/or on the spindle and/or for release of the machining tool from the spindle col.3, lines 30-31), configured to secure a tool or release the tool from the at least one tool mounting unit (16a); and at least one dampening element (146,148) arranged between the at least one actuation unit and the at least one tool mounting unit (16a), wherein the at least one dampening element is formed as an elastomer (The damping element 148b, 150b, 152b here can be formed from elastomer, from a gel pad with viscous liquid or from another material. col. 17, lines 34-36).
With regard to claim 2, Maute discloses a tool clamping device (122a), wherein the at least one dampening element (146,148) comprises a disk-shaped base body (see fig.8).
With regard to claim 3 Maute discloses a tool clamping device (122a), wherein the at least one dampening element (246,148) comprises a base body (see fig.8), the maximum transverse extension of which corresponds at least substantially to a transverse extension of the at least one tool mounting unit(16a) and/or the at least one actuation unit that is parallel thereto.
With regard to claim 4 Maute discloses a tool clamping device (122a), wherein: the at least one dampening element (146,148) comprises at least one mounting positive-locking element (52b, 102b), and the at least one tool mounting unit (16a) and/or the at least one actuation unit comprises a corresponding mounting positive-locking element.
With regard to claim 5 Maute discloses a tool clamping device (122a), wherein the at least one dampening element comprises a receiving recess (recess supporting the spindle 16) configured to receive a fixing element of the at least one tool mounting unit (16a) and/or the at least one actuation unit.
With regard to claim 9, Maute discloses a tool clamping device (122a), wherein the at least one dampening element is made of a rubber (The damping element 148b, 150b, 152b here can be formed from elastomer, from a gel pad with viscous liquid or from another material appearing expedient to a person skilled in the art. col.17, lines 34-37).
With regard to claim 10, Maute discloses an oscillating multifunction tool (12a), comprising: at least one tool clamping device (122a); and at least one drive unit (80a) configured to drive a tool (18a) that is secured to the at least one tool clamping device (16a).
With regard to claim 11, Maute discloses a method of assembling the tool clamping device (122a) as well known to the skilled artisan.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Maute in view of Kuhnle et al. (US 8231438) hereinafter (Kuhnle).
With regard to claim 6 Maute discloses a tool clamping device (12a), but does not show, wherein the at least one dampening element (146,148) comprises at least one protrusion corresponding to the receiving recess as the mounting positive-locking element. However, Kuhnle teaches a tool clamping device (1 fig.1) including at least one dampening element (23 fig.8) comprising at least one protrusion (upward extending portion as seen in fig.8) corresponding to the receiving recess supporting element#2). In view of Kuhnle teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Maute damping element in order to firmly be attached to the spindle, and further vibration-damp the fastening flange and locknut (col.5, lines 12-13).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Maute in view of Obviousness.
With regard to claim 8 Maute discloses a tool clamping device (12a), but silent about, wherein the at least one dampening element has a hardness of between 40 and 60 Shore A in accordance with ISO 7619-1. However, it is the position of the Office that dampening element having a hardness of between 40 and 60 Shore A in accordance with ISO 7619-1 is well known, and within the engineering purview of the skilled artisan. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing of the present invention to modify the damping element of Maute with specific hardness of between 40 and 60 Shore A in accordance with ISO 7619-1for the benefits of resisting wear and tear thereto, since to do so provides nothing new and unexpected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but
would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 7 Maute discloses a tool clamping device, but does not disclose or teach in combination, wherein the at least one dampening element is configured to form at least one mounting positive-locking element, which breaks a rotational symmetry of the at least one dampening element with respect to an axis perpendicular to a main extension plane of the at least one dampening element.
Conclusion
Refer to attachment for notice of references cited and recommended for
consideration based on their disclosure of limitations of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL C. CHUKWURAH whose telephone number is (571)272-4457. The examiner can normally be reached M-F & T-F 7-4:30 IFP.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 571-260-1926. 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.
/NATHANIEL C CHUKWURAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
7/3/2026
Prosecution Insights