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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Para 0004,00144 “older” appears as if it should be –holder--. Para 0080 calls for “fourth illustrated embodiment of the retainer”; however, this appears as if it should be the –third illustrated embodiment of the retainer--. See Figs. 41 and 50 and corresponding brief description of drawings. Para 0091 calls for “fourth illustrated embodiment of the retainer”; however, this appears as if it should be the –third illustrated embodiment of the retainer--. See Figs. 41 and 50 and corresponding brief description of drawings.
Para 00114 calls for “fourth illustrated embodiment of the retainer”; however, this appears as if it should be the –third illustrated embodiment of the retainer--. See Figs. 41 and 50 and corresponding brief description of drawings.
Para 00129 calls for “fourth illustrated embodiment of the retainer”; however, this appears as if it should be the –third illustrated embodiment of the retainer--. See Figs. 41 and 50 and corresponding brief description of drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because para 0029 calls for Fig. 21 to show a bit holder assembly, but no such holder assembly is depicted in Fig. 21. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 30,31,37,38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed disclosure fails to provide basis for “the notch comprising a variable axial length” and “the second slot comprising a variable axial length” as called for in claims 30,31,37,38; therefore such limitations constitute new matter.
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 1-6, 10-15, 21,22, 23,26,29, 30-32,37-39,44-47
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 is confusing because the “retainer” does not comprise “at least two surfaces adapted to form a seal between the bit and the bore of the base block”. Claim 1 appears to be directed to at least Figs. 91,96,113 wherein the “at least two surfaces” are spacers 130/150 which are not part of the retainer 60. Furthermore, the seal is formed between the bit and a bore of a bit holder (32) not bit block (38).
See para 0080,0099,00114 wherein a bit (20), spacer (130,150), retainer (60,80,90,120,230) bit holder (32) and base block (38) make up a bit assembly.
Also note that the first slot (62) extends from the axial forward end (64) see Fig. 22, therefore the retainer cannot include the spacer (130,150).
Claim 6 calls for a bit, claim 1 calls for a bit, it is unclear if and how they are related.
Claim 10 is confusing because the “bit” does not comprise “a retainer” and the retainer does not comprise “at least two surfaces adapted to form a seal between the bit and the bore of the base block”. Claim 10 appears to be directed to at least Figs. 91,96,113 wherein the “bit” (20) is a separate element from retainer (60,80,90,120,230) and “at least two surfaces” are spacers 130/150 which are not part of the retainer 60. Furthermore, the seal is formed between the bit and a bore of a bit holder (32) not bit block (38).
See para 0080,0099,00114 wherein a bit (20), spacer (130,150), retainer (60,80,90,120,230) bit holder (32) and base block (38) make up a bit assembly.
Also note that the first slot (62) extends from the axial forward end (64) see Fig. 22, therefore the retainer cannot include the spacer (130,150).
Claim 44 calls for “a bore of a bit holder”; claim 1 calls for “a bore of a base block”; it is unclear if and how they are related. See at least Figure 91, a bit is mounted in a bore of a bit holder and the bit holder is mounted in a bore of a base block.
Claim 45 calls for “a bore of a bit holder”; claim 10 calls for “a bore of a base block”; it is unclear if and how they are related. See at least Figure 91, a bit is mounted in a bore of a bit holder and the bit holder is mounted in a bore of a base block.
Claim 46, “the second slot” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 47, “the second slot” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 22 is confusing because the “bit” does not comprise “a retainer” and “at least one spacer”. Claim 22 appears to be directed to at least Figs. 91,96,113 wherein the “bit” (20) is a separate element from retainer (60,80,90,120,230) and “at least one spacer” (130/150).
See para 0080,0099,00114 wherein a bit (20), spacer (130,150), retainer (60,80,90,120,230) bit holder (32) and base block (38) make up a bit assembly.
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.
Insofar the claims are understood, the following rejection(s) apply.
Claim(s) 1-6,10-15,23,26,29,30 31,32,37,38,39,44,45,46,47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levankovsky ‘899 in view of Beebe ‘550 and Beach et al. ‘649.
Levankovsky discloses a retainer comprising: a generally cylindrical hollow body portion including an axial forward end and an axial distal end; a first slot extending through a sidewall of the body portion from the axial forward end to the axial distal end;
a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a first radial end surface of the first slot; and a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface of the first slot (see Fig. 6). Levankovsky discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Levankovsky lacks a generally cylindrical hollow body portion including at least two surfaces adapted to form a seal between a bit and bore of bit block/holder. Further, Levankovsky lacks a notch opposite the axial forward end of the retainer and approximately 180 degrees from the first slot, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, a distal width of the notch comprising a greater width than a proximal width of the notch.
Beebe teaches a generally cylindrical hollow body portion including at least two surfaces (see marked up Figures, 3,4,6 below) adapted to form a seal between a bit and bore of bit block/holder.
Beach et al. teaches a notch opposite the axial forward end of the retainer and approximately 180 degrees from the first slot, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, a distal width of the notch comprising a greater width than a proximal width of the notch (see marked up Figure 6 below).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levankovsky to include a generally cylindrical hollow body portion including at least two surfaces adapted to form a seal between a bit and bore of bit block/holder as taught by Beebe since such a modification protects the holder/block and/or prevent fines from obstructing the bit rotation.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levankovsky to include
a notch opposite the axial forward end of the retainer and approximately 180 degrees from the first slot, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, a distal width of the notch comprising a greater width than a proximal width of the notch as taught by Beach et al. since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the retainer into the holder/block.
Re claim 2, the first angled portion and the second angled portion forming a dual corner break of the retainer adjacent the axial distal end of the retainer (see Fig. 6 of Levankovsky).
Re claim 3, further comprising: a chamfer at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer (see Fig. 6 of Levankovsky).
Re claim 4, further comprising: the notch comprising at least one of an arcuate configuration and an angular configuration opposite the axial forward end of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer (see marked up Fig. 6 below).
Re claim 5, further comprising: a second slot axially extending from the notch through the sidewall of the retainer, the second slot disposed approximately 180 degrees from the first slot (see marked up Fig. 6 below).
Re claim 6, the sidewall comprising at least one tab (10, of Levankovsky) extending axially and radially inwardly, the at least one tab adapted to engage a flange on a shank of a bit to prevent the retainer from being removed from the shank.
Re claim 23, further comprising: a gap profile defined by the first radial end surface and the second radial end surface of the first slot, at least one of the first radial end surface, the second radial end surface, and the gap profile of the first slot being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig- zagged (see Fig. 6 of Levankovsky).
Re claim 30, the notch comprising a variable axial length (see marked up Fig. 6 below).
Re claim 31, the second slot comprising a variable axial length (see marked up Fig. 6 below).
Re claim 32, further comprising: a second slot termination disposed a predetermined distance from the distal end of the retainer along an axial length of the retainer (see marked up Fig. 6 below).
Re claim 44, the generally cylindrical hollow body portion of the retainer comprising a linear outer surface adapted to contact a bore of a bit holder (see Figs. 11,12 of Levankovsky).
Re claim 46, further comprising: at least one tab aperture (116, of marked up Figure below) defined by the at least one tab (114) , the second slot (112) axially extending to (means going towards) a distal end of the at least one tab aperture.
PNG
media_image1.png
612
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
698
824
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
242
502
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re claim 10, Levankovsky discloses a bit comprising: a body portion; a generally cylindrical shank axially depending from a bottom of the body portion; and a retainer disposed circumferentially about the shank (see Figs. 1-6), the retainer comprising: a generally cylindrical hollow retainer body portion including an axial forward end and an axial distal end; a first slot extending through a sidewall of the retainer body portion from the axial forward end to the axial distal end; a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a first radial end surface of the first slot; and a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface of the first slot (see Fig. 6). Levankovsky discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Levankovsky lacks a generally cylindrical hollow body portion including at least two surfaces adapted to form a seal between a bit and bore of bit block/holder.
Further, Levankovsky lacks a notch opposite the axial forward end of the retainer and approximately 180 degrees from the first slot, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, a distal width of the notch comprising a greater width than a proximal width of the notch.
Beebe teaches a generally cylindrical hollow body portion including at least two surfaces (see marked up Figures, 3,4,6 above) adapted to form a seal between a bit and bore of bit block/holder.
Beach et al. teaches a notch opposite the axial forward end of the retainer and approximately 180 degrees from the first slot, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, a distal width of the notch comprising a greater width than a proximal width of the notch (see marked up Figure 6 above).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levankovsky to include a generally cylindrical hollow body portion including at least two surfaces adapted to form a seal between a bit and bore of bit block/holder as taught by Beebe since such a modification protects the holder/block and/or prevent fines from obstructing the bit rotation.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levankovsky to include
a notch opposite the axial forward end of the retainer and approximately 180 degrees from the first slot, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, a distal width of the notch comprising a greater width than a proximal width of the notch as taught by Beach et al. since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the retainer into the holder/block.
Re claim 11, the first angled portion and the second angled portion forming a dual corner break of the retainer adjacent the axial distal end of the retainer (see Fig. 6 of Levankovsky).
Re claim 12, further comprising: a chamfer at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer (see Fig. 6 of Levankovsky).
Re claim 13, further comprising: the notch comprising at least one of an arcuate configuration and an angular configuration of the retainer opposite the axial forward end of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer (see marked up Fig. 6 above).
Re claim 14, further comprising: a second slot of the retainer axially extending from the notch through the sidewall of the retainer to a second slot termination, the second slot disposed approximately 180 degrees from the first slot (see marked up Fig. 6 above).
Re claim 15, the sidewall of the retainer comprising at least one tab extending axially and radially inwardly, the at least one tab adapted to engage a flange on the shank of the bit to prevent the retainer from being removed from the shank (10, see Figs. 1,2,6, 8,11 of Levankovsky).
Re claim 26, the retainer further comprising: a gap profile defined by the first radial end surface and the second radial end surface of the first slot, at least one of the first radial end surface, the second radial end surface, and the gap profile of the first slot being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig- zagged (see Fig. 6 of Levankovsky).
Re claim 29, further comprising: a washer (42, Beebe) disposed circumferentially about the shank adjacent the bottom of the body portion.
Re claim 37, the notch comprising a variable axial length (see marked up Fig. 6 above).
Re claim 38, the second slot comprising a variable axial length (see marked up Fig. 6 above).
Re claim 39, further comprising: a second slot termination disposed a predetermined distance from the distal end of the retainer along an axial length of the retainer (see marked up Figure 6 above).
Re claim 45, the generally cylindrical hollow body portion of the retainer comprising a linear outer surface adapted to contact a bore of a bit holder (see Figs. 11,12 of Levankovsky).
Re claim 47, further comprising: at least one tab aperture (116, marked up Fig. 6 above) defined by the at least one tab (114), the second slot axially extending to (means going towards) a distal end of the at least one tab aperture.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levankovsky ‘899 in view of Beach et al. ‘649.
It should be noted that the claim require choosing between either a “split” spacer or a solid spacer. What was deemed allowable was the “split” spacer called for in claim 22 or at least two spacers (130,150) See Figs. 72, 91, 106.
Re claim 22, Levankovsky discloses a bit comprising a body portion: a generally cylindrical shank axially depending from a bottom of the body portion: and a retainer disposed circumferentially about the shank, the retainer comprising: a generally cylindrical hollow retainer body portion including an axial forward end and an axial distal end; a first slot extending through a sidewall of the retainer body portion from the axial forward end to the axial distal end: a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a first radial end surface of the first slot: a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface of the first slot (see Fig. 6); and at least one spacer (11) disposed circumferentially about the shank between the bottom of the body portion and the axial forward end of the retainer (see Fig. 9), the at least one spacer comprising one of a nearly butted annular hollow spacer and a solid annular hollow spacer; a first spacer radial end surface of the nearly butted annular hollow spacer; a second spacer radial end surface of the nearly butted annular hollow spacer opposite the first spacer radial end surface, the first spacer radial end surface spaced from the second spacer radial end surface. Levankovsky discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Levankovsky lacks a notch opposite the axial forward end of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, a distal diameter of the notch comprising a greater width than a proximal diameter of the notch.
Beach et al. teaches a notch opposite the axial forward end of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, a distal diameter of the notch comprising a greater width than a proximal diameter of the notch (see marked up Figure 6 above). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levankovsky to include
a notch opposite the axial forward end of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, a distal diameter of the notch comprising a greater width than a proximal diameter of the notch as taught by Beach et al. since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the retainer into the holder/block.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levankovsky in view of Beach et al. as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Beebe ‘550.
Levankovsky (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Levankovsky (as modified above) is silent about a distal end of the at least one spacer contacting the axial forward end of the retainer. Beebe teaches a distal end of the at least one spacer contacting the axial forward end of the retainer (42, see Figs. 3,4,6). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Levankovsky (as modified) to have the distal end of the at least one spacer contacting the axial forward end of the retainer as taught by Beebe since such a modification protects the holder/block and/or prevent fines from obstructing the bit rotation.
Claim(s) 1-6,10-15, 23, 26, 29,30-32,37-39,44,45,46,47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach et al. (US 4850649) in view of Beebe ‘550 and Levankovsky ‘899
Beach et al. discloses a retainer (see Fig. 6) comprising:
a generally cylindrical hollow body portion including an axial forward end and an axial distal end (see Fig. 6);
a first slot extending through a sidewall of the body portion from the axial forward end to the axial distal end (see Fig. 6), a notch opposite the axial forward end of the retainer and approximately 180 degrees from the first slot, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, a distal width of the notch comprising a greater width than a proximal width of the notch (see marked up Fig. 6 below).
Beach et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
However, Beach et al. lacks a generally cylindrical hollow body portion including at least two surfaces adapted to form a seal between a bit and bore of bit block/holder.
Further, Beach et al. is silent about including a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a first radial end surface of the first slot; and a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface of the first slot.
Beebe teaches a generally cylindrical hollow body portion including at least two surfaces (see marked up Figures, 3,4,6 below) adapted to form a seal between a bit and bore of bit block/holder.
Levankovsky teaches a retainer including a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a first radial end surface of the first slot; and a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface of the first slot (see Fig. 6).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beach et al. to include a generally cylindrical hollow body portion including at least two surfaces adapted to form a seal between a bit and bore of bit block/holder as taught by Beebe since such a modification protects the holder/block and/or prevent fines from obstructing the bit rotation.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beach et al. to include
a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a first radial end surface of the first slot; and a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface of the first slot as taught by Levankovsky since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the retainer into the holder/block.
PNG
media_image3.png
242
502
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
612
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
698
824
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, the first angled portion and the second angled portion forming a dual corner break of the retainer adjacent the axial distal end of the retainer (see Fig. 6 of Levankovsky).
Re claim 3, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beach et al. to include a chamfer at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer as taught by Levankovsky (see Fig. 6) since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the retainer into the holder/block.
Re claim 4, further comprising: the notch (see marked up Figure 6 above of Beach et al.) comprising at least one of an arcuate configuration and an angular configuration.
Re claim 5, further comprising: a second slot axially extending from the notch through the sidewall of the retainer, the second slot disposed approximately 180 degrees from the first slot (see marked up Figure 6 above).
Re claim 6, the sidewall comprising at least one tab (114, see col. 5-6 of Beach et al.) extending axially and radially inwardly, the at least one tab adapted to engage a flange on a shank of a bit to prevent the retainer from being removed from the shank.
Re claim 23, further comprising: a gap profile defined by the first radial end surface and the second radial end surface of the first slot, at least one of the first radial end surface, the second radial end surface, and the gap profile of the first slot being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig- zagged (see Fig. 6 of Beach et al.).
Re claim 30, the notch comprising a variable axial length (112, see marked up Fig. 6 above of Beach et al.).
Re claim 31, the second slot comprising a variable axial length (see marked up Figure 6 of Beach et al. above).
Re claim 32, further comprising: a second slot termination disposed a predetermined distance from the distal end of the retainer along an axial length of the retainer (see marked up Figure 6 of Beach et al. above).
Re claim 44, the generally cylindrical hollow body portion of the retainer comprising a linear outer surface adapted to contact a bore of a bit holder (see Fig. 2, Beach et al).
Re claim 46, further comprising: at least one tab aperture (116, of Fig. 6 above) defined by the at least one tab (114), the second slot axially extending (means moving towards) to a distal end of the at least one tab aperture.
Re claim 10, Beach et al. discloses a bit comprising: a body portion; a generally cylindrical shank axially depending from a bottom of the body portion (see Figs. 2,3,6,7); and a retainer (See Fig. 6) disposed circumferentially about the shank, the retainer comprising: a generally cylindrical hollow retainer body portion including an axial forward end and an axial distal end; a first slot extending through a sidewall of the retainer body portion from the axial forward end to the axial distal end, a notch opposite the axial forward end of the retainer and approximately 180 degrees from the first slot, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, a distal width of the notch comprising a greater width than a proximal width of the notch (112, see marked up Fig. 6 above).
Beach et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
However, Beach et al. lacks a generally cylindrical hollow body portion including at least two surfaces adapted to form a seal between a bit and bore of bit block/holder.
Further, Beach et al. is silent about including a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a first radial end surface of the first slot; and a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface of the first slot.
Beebe teaches a generally cylindrical hollow body portion including at least two surfaces (see marked up Figures, 3,4,6 above) adapted to form a seal between a bit and bore of bit block/holder.
Levankovsky teaches a retainer including a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a first radial end surface of the first slot; and a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface of the first slot (see Fig. 6).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beach et al. to include a generally cylindrical hollow body portion including at least two surfaces adapted to form a seal between a bit and bore of bit block/holder as taught by Beebe since such a modification protects the holder/block and/or prevent fines from obstructing the bit rotation.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beach et al. to include
a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a first radial end surface of the first slot; and a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface of the first slot as taught by Levankovsky since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the retainer into the holder/block.
Re claim 11, the first angled portion and the second angled portion forming a dual corner break of the retainer adjacent the axial distal end of the retainer (see Fig. 6 of Levankovsky).
Re claim 12, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beach et al. to include a chamfer at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer as taught by Levankovsky (see Fig. 6) since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the retainer into the holder/block.
Re claim 13, further comprising: the notch comprising at least one of an arcuate configuration and an angular configuration (see marked up Figure 6 of Beach et al. above).
Re claim 14, further comprising: a second slot of the retainer axially extending from the notch through the sidewall of the retainer, the second slot disposed approximately 180 degrees from the first slot (see marked up Figure 6 of Beach et al. above).
Re claim 15, the sidewall of the retainer comprising at least one tab extending axially and radially inwardly (114, see cols. 5 thru 6 of Beach et al.), the at least one tab adapted to engage a flange on the shank of the bit to prevent the retainer from being removed from the shank.
Re claim 26, further comprising: a gap profile defined by the first radial end surface and the second radial end surface of the first slot, at least one of the first radial end surface, the second radial end surface, and the gap profile of the first slot being at least one of
linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 6).
Re claim 29, further comprising: a washer (42, Beebe) disposed circumferentially about the shank adjacent the bottom of the body portion.
Re claim 37, the notch comprising a variable axial length (112, see Fig. 6 of Beach et al. above).
Re claim 38, the second slot comprising a variable axial length (see marked up Figure 6 of Beach et al. above).
Re claim 39, further comprising: a second slot termination disposed a predetermined distance from the distal end of the retainer along an axial length of the retainer (see marked up Figure 6 of Beach et al. above).
Re claim 45, the generally cylindrical hollow body portion of the retainer comprising a linear outer surface adapted to contact a bore of a bit holder (Fig. 2 of Beach et al).
Re claim 47, further comprising: at least one tab aperture (116, of Fig. 6 above) defined by the at least one tab (114), the second slot axially extending (means moving towards) to a distal end of the at least one tab aperture.
Re claim 22, Beach et al. discloses a bit further comprising: a body portion: a generally cylindrical shank axially depending from a bottom of the body portion: and a retainer disposed circumferentially about the shank, the retainer comprising: a generally cylindrical hollow retainer body portion including an axial forward end and an axial distal end; a first slot extending through a sidewall of the retainer body portion from the axial forward end to the axial distal end (see Figs. 2,6,7); and a notch opposite the axial forward end of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, a distal diameter of the notch comprising a greater width than a proximal diameter of the notch (see marked up Figure 6 above). Beach et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Beach et al. is silent about including
a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a first radial end surface of the first slot: a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface of the first slot. Further, Beach et al. lacks at least one spacer disposed circumferentially about the shank between the bottom of the body portion and the axial forward end of the retainer, the at least one spacer comprising one of a nearly butted annular hollow spacer and a solid annular hollow spacer; a first spacer radial end surface of the nearly butted annular hollow spacer; a second spacer radial end surface of the nearly butted annular hollow spacer opposite the first spacer radial end surface, the first spacer radial end surface spaced from the second spacer radial end surface.
Levankovsky teaches a retainer including a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a first radial end surface of the first slot; and a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface of the first slot (see Fig. 6).
Beebe teaches at least one spacer (42) disposed circumferentially about the shank between the bottom of the body portion and the axial forward end of the retainer, the at least one spacer comprising one of a nearly butted annular hollow spacer and a solid annular hollow spacer; a first spacer radial end surface of the nearly butted annular hollow spacer; a second spacer radial end surface of the nearly butted annular hollow spacer opposite the first spacer radial end surface, the first spacer radial end surface spaced from the second spacer radial end surface.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beach et al. to include
a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a first radial end surface of the first slot; and a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface of the first slot as taught by Levankovsky since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the retainer into the holder/block.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beach et al to include at least one spacer disposed circumferentially about the shank between the bottom of the body portion and the axial forward end of the retainer, the at least one spacer comprising one of a nearly butted annular hollow spacer and a solid annular hollow spacer; as taught by Beebe since such a modification protects the holder/block and/or prevent fines from obstructing the bit rotation.
Re claim 21, a distal end of the at least one spacer contacting the axial forward end of the retainer (see Figs. 3,4,6 of Beebe).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,10 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. Regarding claims 1,10, applicant argues that Levankovsky and Beach et al. fail to teach retainer body portion including at least two surfaces adapted to form a seal between the bit and bore of a bit holder/base block. Further, applicant argues that Levankovsky and Beach et al. fail to teach a notch opposite the axial forward end of the retainer and approximately 180 degrees from the first slot, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer with a distal width of the notch comprising a greater width than a proximal width of the notch. As noted above, the examiner relied on Beebe for the teaching of a retainer body portion including at least two surfaces adapted to form a seal between the bit and bore of a bit holder/base block and not Levankovsky or Beach et al. Unlike applicant’s assertion, Beach et al. does teach a notch opposite the axial forward end of the retainer and approximately 180 degrees from the first slot, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer with a distal width of the notch comprising a greater width than a proximal width of the notch (see marked up Figure 6 of Beach et al. above). Therefore, the combination of Levankovsky and Beach et al. and Beebe disclose the claimed subject matter called for in claims 1,10.
Regarding (claims 1,10) applicant’s argument that Beach et al. in view of Levankovsky fail to teach retainer body portion including at least two surfaces adapted to form a seal between the bit and bore of a bit holder/base block. Further, applicant argues that Beach et al. and Beach et al. fail to teach a notch opposite the axial forward end of the retainer and approximately 180 degrees from the first slot, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer with a distal width of the notch comprising a greater width than a proximal width of the notch. The examiner disagrees. See examiner’s response above which addresses the same arguments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sollami (US 10612376, 10107098) teaches a retainer comprising: a generally cylindrical hollow body portion including an axial forward end and an axial distal end, the generally cylindrical hollow body portion including at least two surfaces adapted to form a seal between a bit upon which the retainer is circumferentially mounted and a bore of a base block in which the bit is mounted.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7051. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-3, F 9-8 and 2nd Sat 11-7.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571 270 5281. 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.
/SUNIL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SS
10/30/2025