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 .
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 1,2,4-6,10,11,13,14,15,23,26,29,30,31,32,37,38,39,44-49 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 line 19, “then chamfer” should be –the chamfer—
Claim 10 line 23, “then chamfer” should be –the chamfer—
Claim 22 line 21, “then chamfer” should be –the chamfer—
Claim 30, “the notch” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 31, “the second slot” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 31, calls for “second slot”; claim 5 calls for “at least one compression slot”; it is unclear if and how they are related.
Claim 32 calls for “a second slot termination”; claim 5 calls for “at least one compression slot”; it is unclear if and how they are related.
Claim 37, “the notch” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 39 calls for “a second slot termination”; claim 14 calls for “at least one compression slot”; it is unclear if and how they are related.
Claim 46, “the second slot” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 46, calls for “second slot”; claim 1 calls for “at least one compression slot”; it is unclear if and how they are related.
Claim 47, “the second slot” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 47, calls for “second slot”; claim 10 calls for “at least one compression slot”; it is unclear if and how they are related
Claim 48, “the at least two surfaces of the body portion” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 48 is confusing because the spacer (130,150) do not form a seal with at least two surfaces of the body portion (60,90 of retainer). See Figure 98 wherein it illustrates how spacer 130 seals and how its separate from the retainer (90). It is the spacer that has two surfaces to form the seal.
Claim 49, “the at least two surfaces of the body portion” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 49 is confusing because the spacer (130,150) do not form a seal with at least two surfaces of the body portion (22,24 of bit). See Figure 98 wherein it illustrates how spacer 130 seals and how its separate from the body portion (22,24). It is the spacer that has two surfaces to form the seal.
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/second slot (compression slot) 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. Retainers have different notch/slot lengths is not the same as a retainer having variable notch/slot length. Retainer A having 10mm notch length and Retainer B having 15mm notch length is not the same as Retainer C having a notch length that could change from 10mm to 15mm.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is require: “the at least one chamfer comprising a chamfer length and a chamfer height, the chamfer length being greater than then chamfer height”.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,6,10,11,15,23,26,29,44,45,48,49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russian document (RU 2198292) in view of Emmerich (US 4484783) and Ojanen (US 20020153175).
Russian document ‘292 discloses a retainer (see Fig. 6) 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;
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; and
the axial forward end of the retainer comprising a solid circular end wall except for a
single gap in the end wall formed by the first slot. Russian document ‘292 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Russian document lacks
at least one compression slot opposite the first slot of the retainer, the at least one
compression slot extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, an axial length less than the axial length of the body portion; at least one chamfer at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer, the at least one chamfer comprising a chamfer length and a chamfer height, the chamfer length being greater than the chamfer height, the axial distance of the at least one compression slot being greater than the height of the at least one chamfer and the combination of the at least one chamfer and the at least one compression slot providing a radial direction of collapse of the axial distal end of the generally cylindrical hollow body portion upon the application of radial pressure to the outer surface of the retainer.
Emmerich teaches at least one compression slot (where 46 is pointing in Fig. 11) opposite the first slot (where 44 is pointing in Fig. 11) of the retainer, the at least one compression slot extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, an axial length less than the axial length of the body portion.
Ojanen teaches at least one chamfer (51, para 0040) at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer, the at least one chamfer comprising a chamfer length and a chamfer height, the chamfer length being greater than then chamfer height (see Figs. 5-9,15).
It would have been considered obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Russian document ‘292 to include
at least one compression slot opposite the first slot of the retainer, the at least one compression slot extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, an axial length less than the axial length of the body portion as taught by Emmerich since such a modification facilitates the installation of the retainer into the block/holder by making the retainer more flexible.
It would have been considered obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Russian document ‘292 to have
at least one chamfer at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer, the at least one chamfer comprising a chamfer length and a chamfer height, the chamfer length being greater than then chamfer height as taught by Ojanen
since such a modification facilitates the installation of the retainer into the block/holder.
It should be noted that the above combination of references yield “the axial distance of the at least one compression slot being greater than the height of the at least one chamfer” and “the combination of the at least one chamfer and the at least one compression slot providing a radial direction of collapse of the axial distal end of the generally cylindrical hollow body portion upon the application of radial pressure to the outer surface of the retainer”.
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 Russian document ‘292).
Re claim 6, the sidewall comprising at least one tab (9, Fig. 6 of Russian document ‘292) 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 Russian document ‘292).
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 Russian document ‘292).
Re claim 48, further comprising at least one spacer (7, Figs. 11,12 of Russian document ‘292) adjacent the axial forward end of the retainer, the at least one spacer adapted to form a seal with the at least two surfaces of the body portion.
Re claim 10, Russian document ‘292 discloses a bit (see Figs. 1-6, 11,12) comprising:
a body portion;
a generally cylindrical shank axially depending from a bottom of the body portion, the
shank comprising 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 of Russian document ‘292); and the axial forward end of the retainer comprising a solid circular end wall except for a single gap in the end wall formed by the first slot.
Russian document ‘292 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Russian document lacks at least one compression slot opposite the first slot of the retainer, the at least one compression slot extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, an axial length less than the axial length of the body portion; at least one chamfer at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer, the at least one chamfer comprising a chamfer length and a chamfer height, the chamfer length being greater than the chamfer height, the axial distance of the at least one compression slot being greater than the height of the at least one chamfer and the combination of the at least one chamfer and the at least one compression slot providing a radial direction of collapse of the axial distal end of the generally cylindrical hollow body portion upon the application of radial pressure to the outer surface of the retainer.
Emmerich teaches at least one compression slot (where 46 is pointing in Fig. 11) opposite the first slot (where 44 is pointing in Fig. 11) of the retainer, the at least one compression slot extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, an axial length less than the axial length of the body portion.
Ojanen teaches at least one chamfer (51, para 0040) at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer, the at least one chamfer comprising a chamfer length and a chamfer height, the chamfer length being greater than then chamfer height (see Figs. 5-9,15).
It would have been considered obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Russian document ‘292 to include
at least one compression slot opposite the first slot of the retainer, the at least one compression slot extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, an axial length less than the axial length of the body portion as taught by Emmerich since such a modification facilitates the installation of the retainer into the block/holder by making the retainer more flexible.
It would have been considered obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Russian document ‘292 to have
at least one chamfer at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer, the at least one chamfer comprising a chamfer length and a chamfer height, the chamfer length being greater than then chamfer height as taught by Ojanen
since such a modification facilitates the installation of the retainer into the block/holder.
It should be noted that the above combination of references yield “the axial distance of the at least one compression slot being greater than the height of the at least one chamfer” and “the combination of the at least one chamfer and the at least one compression slot providing a radial direction of collapse of the axial distal end of the generally cylindrical hollow body portion upon the application of radial pressure to the outer surface of the retainer”.
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 Russian document ‘292).
Re claim 15, the sidewall comprising at least one tab (9, Fig. 6 of Russian document ‘292) 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 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 of Russian document ‘292).
Re claim 29, further comprising: a washer (7, Figs. 11,12 of Russian document ‘292) disposed circumferentially about the shank adjacent the bottom of the body portion.
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 Russian document ‘292).
Re claim 49, further comprising at least one spacer (7, Figs. 11,12 of Russian document ‘292) adjacent the axial forward end of the retainer, the at least one spacer adapted to form a seal with the at least two surfaces of the body portion.
Claim(s) 1,2,6,10,11,15,23,26,29,44,45,48,49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russian document (RU 2198292) in view of WO document (WO 2010027315) and Ojanen (US 20020153175).
Russian document ‘292 discloses a retainer (see Fig. 6) 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;
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; and
the axial forward end of the retainer comprising a solid circular end wall except for a
single gap in the end wall formed by the first slot. Russian document ‘292 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Russian document lacks
at least one compression slot opposite the first slot of the retainer, the at least one
compression slot extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, an axial length less than the axial length of the body portion; at least one chamfer at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer, the at least one chamfer comprising a chamfer length and a chamfer height, the chamfer length being greater than the chamfer height, the axial distance of the at least one compression slot being greater than the height of the at least one chamfer and the combination of the at least one chamfer and the at least one compression slot providing a radial direction of collapse of the axial distal end of the generally cylindrical hollow body portion upon the application of radial pressure to the outer surface of the retainer.
WO document ‘315 teaches at least one compression slot (see marked up Figure below) opposite the first slot (see marked up Figure below) of the retainer, the at least one compression slot extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, an axial length less than the axial length of the body portion.
Ojanen teaches at least one chamfer (51, para 0040) at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer, the at least one chamfer comprising a chamfer length and a chamfer height, the chamfer length being greater than then chamfer height (see Figs. 5-9,15).
It would have been considered obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Russian document ‘292 to include
at least one compression slot opposite the first slot of the retainer, the at least one compression slot extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, an axial length less than the axial length of the body portion as taught by WO document ‘315 since such a modification facilitates the installation of the retainer into the block/holder by making the retainer more flexible.
It would have been considered obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Russian document ‘292 to have
at least one chamfer at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer, the at least one chamfer comprising a chamfer length and a chamfer height, the chamfer length being greater than then chamfer height as taught by Ojanen
since such a modification facilitates the installation of the retainer into the block/holder.
It should be noted that the above combination of references yield “the axial distance of the at least one compression slot being greater than the height of the at least one chamfer” and “the combination of the at least one chamfer and the at least one compression slot providing a radial direction of collapse of the axial distal end of the generally cylindrical hollow body portion upon the application of radial pressure to the outer surface of the retainer”.
PNG
media_image1.png
710
726
media_image1.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 Russian document ‘292).
Re claim 6, the sidewall comprising at least one tab (9, Fig. 6 of Russian document ‘292) 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 Russian document ‘292).
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 Russian document ‘292).
Re claim 48, further comprising at least one spacer (7, Figs. 11,12 of Russian document ‘292) adjacent the axial forward end of the retainer, the at least one spacer adapted to form a seal with the at least two surfaces of the body portion.
Re claim 10, Russian document ‘292 discloses a bit (see Figs. 1-6, 11,12) comprising:
a body portion;
a generally cylindrical shank axially depending from a bottom of the body portion, the
shank comprising 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 of Russian document ‘292); and the axial forward end of the retainer comprising a solid circular end wall except for a single gap in the end wall formed by the first slot.
Russian document ‘292 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Russian document lacks at least one compression slot opposite the first slot of the retainer, the at least one compression slot extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, an axial length less than the axial length of the body portion; at least one chamfer at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer, the at least one chamfer comprising a chamfer length and a chamfer height, the chamfer length being greater than the chamfer height, the axial distance of the at least one compression slot being greater than the height of the at least one chamfer and the combination of the at least one chamfer and the at least one compression slot providing a radial direction of collapse of the axial distal end of the generally cylindrical hollow body portion upon the application of radial pressure to the outer surface of the retainer.
WO document ‘315 teaches at least one compression slot (see marked up Figure above) opposite the first slot (see marked up Figure above) of the retainer, the at least one compression slot extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, an axial length less than the axial length of the body portion.
Ojanen teaches at least one chamfer (51, para 0040) at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer, the at least one chamfer comprising a chamfer length and a chamfer height, the chamfer length being greater than then chamfer height (see Figs. 5-9,15).
It would have been considered obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Russian document ‘292 to include
at least one compression slot opposite the first slot of the retainer, the at least one compression slot extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, an axial length less than the axial length of the body portion as taught by WO document ‘315 since such a modification facilitates the installation of the retainer into the block/holder by making the retainer more flexible.
It would have been considered obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Russian document ‘292 to have
at least one chamfer at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer, the at least one chamfer comprising a chamfer length and a chamfer height, the chamfer length being greater than then chamfer height as taught by Ojanen
since such a modification facilitates the installation of the retainer into the block/holder.
It should be noted that the above combination of references yield “the axial distance of the at least one compression slot being greater than the height of the at least one chamfer” and “the combination of the at least one chamfer and the at least one compression slot providing a radial direction of collapse of the axial distal end of the generally cylindrical hollow body portion upon the application of radial pressure to the outer surface of the retainer”.
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 Russian document ‘292).
Re claim 15, the sidewall comprising at least one tab (9, Fig. 6 of Russian document ‘292) 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 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 of Russian document ‘292).
Re claim 29, further comprising: a washer (7, Figs. 11,12 of Russian document ‘292) disposed circumferentially about the shank adjacent the bottom of the body portion.
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 Russian document ‘292).
Re claim 49, further comprising at least one spacer (7, Figs. 11,12 of Russian document ‘292) adjacent the axial forward end of the retainer, the at least one spacer adapted to form a seal with the at least two surfaces of the body portion.
Claim(s) 21,22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russian document (RU 2198292) in view of Beach et al. (US 4850649) and Ojanen (US 20020153175).
Re claim 22, Russian document ‘292 discloses a bit (see Figs. 1-6, 11,12) comprising: a body portion; a generally cylindrical shank axially depending from a bottom of the body portion, the shank comprising 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
the axial forward end of the retainer comprising a solid circular end wall except for a single gap in the end wall formed by the first slot; at least one spacer (7, Figs. 11,12 of Russian document ‘292) 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.
Russian document ‘292 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Russian document 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; at least one compression slot opposite the first slot of the retainer, the at least one compression slot extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, an axial length less than the axial length of the body portion; at least one chamfer at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer, the at least one chamfer comprising a chamfer length and a chamfer height, the chamfer length being greater than the chamfer height, the axial distance of the at least one compression slot being greater than the height of the at least one chamfer; the combination of the at least one chamfer and the at least one compression slot providing a radial direction of collapse of the axial distal end of the generally cylindrical hollow body portion upon the application of radial pressure to the outer surface of the retainer.
Beach et al. ‘649 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; at least one compression slot opposite the first slot of the retainer, the at least one compression slot extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, an axial length less than the axial length of the body portion (see marked up Figure below).
Ojanen teaches at least one chamfer (51, para 0040) at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer, the at least one chamfer comprising a chamfer length and a chamfer height, the chamfer length being greater than the chamfer height (see Figs. 5-9,15).
It would have been considered obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Russian document ‘292 to include
a notch and at least one compression slot opposite the first slot of the retainer as taught by Beach et al. since such a modification facilitates the installation of the retainer into the block/holder by making the retainer more flexible.
It would have been considered obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Russian document ‘292 to have
at least one chamfer at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer, the at least one chamfer comprising a chamfer length and a chamfer height, the chamfer length being greater than the chamfer height as taught by Ojanen
since such a modification facilitates the installation of the retainer into the block/holder.
It should be noted that the above combination of references yield “the axial distance of the at least one compression slot being greater than the height of the at least one chamfer” and “the combination of the at least one chamfer and the at least one compression slot providing a radial direction of collapse of the axial distal end of the generally cylindrical hollow body portion upon the application of radial pressure to the outer surface of the retainer”.
PNG
media_image2.png
392
738
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 21, a distal end of the at least one spacer (7, Figs. 11,12 of Russian document) contacting the axial forward end of the retainer.
Claim(s) 1,2,4-6,10,11,13,14,15,23,26,29,30,31,32,37,38,39,44,45,48,49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russian document (RU 2198292) in view of Beach et al. ‘649 and Ojanen (US 20020153175).
Russian document ‘292 discloses a retainer (see Fig. 6) 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;
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; and
the axial forward end of the retainer comprising a solid circular end wall except for a
single gap in the end wall formed by the first slot. Russian document ‘292 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Russian document lacks
at least one compression slot opposite the first slot of the retainer, the at least one
compression slot extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, an axial length less than the axial length of the body portion; at least one chamfer at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer, the at least one chamfer comprising a chamfer length and a chamfer height, the chamfer length being greater than the chamfer height, the axial distance of the at least one compression slot being greater than the height of the at least one chamfer and the combination of the at least one chamfer and the at least one compression slot providing a radial direction of collapse of the axial distal end of the generally cylindrical hollow body portion upon the application of radial pressure to the outer surface of the retainer.
Beach et al. ‘649 teaches at least one compression slot (upper portion of 112, see marked up Figure 6 below) opposite the first slot (see marked up Figure 6 below) of the retainer, the at least one compression slot extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, an axial length less than the axial length of the body portion.
Ojanen teaches at least one chamfer (51, para 0040) at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer, the at least one chamfer comprising a chamfer length and a chamfer height, the chamfer length being greater than then chamfer height (see Figs. 5-9,15).
It would have been considered obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Russian document ‘292 to include
at least one compression slot opposite the first slot of the retainer, the at least one compression slot extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, an axial length less than the axial length of the body portion as taught by Beach et al. since such a modification facilitates the installation of the retainer into the block/holder by making the retainer more flexible.
It would have been considered obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Russian document ‘292 to have
at least one chamfer at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer, the at least one chamfer comprising a chamfer length and a chamfer height, the chamfer length being greater than then chamfer height as taught by Ojanen
since such a modification facilitates the installation of the retainer into the block/holder.
It should be noted that the above combination of references yield “the axial distance of the at least one compression slot being greater than the height of the at least one chamfer” and “the combination of the at least one chamfer and the at least one compression slot providing a radial direction of collapse of the axial distal end of the generally cylindrical hollow body portion upon the application of radial pressure to the outer surface of the retainer”.
PNG
media_image3.png
392
738
media_image3.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 Russian document ‘292).
Re claim 4, further comprising: a notch (lower portion of 112, see marked up Figure 6 above) 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, the notch comprising at least one of an arcuate configuration and an angular configuration.
Re claim 5, further comprising: the at least one compression slot (upper portion of 112, see marked up Figure 6 above) axially extending from the notch through the sidewall of the retainer, the at least one compression slot disposed approximately 180 degrees from the first slot.
Re claim 6, the sidewall comprising at least one tab (9, Fig. 6 of Russian document ‘292) 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 30, the notch comprising a variable axial length (see marked up Figure 6 above).
Re claim 31, the second slot (see marked up Figure 6 above) comprising a variable axial length.
Re claim 32, further comprising: a second slot termination (see marked up Figure 6 above) disposed a predetermined distance from the distal end of the retainer along an axial length of the retainer.
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 Russian document ‘292).
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 Russian document ‘292).
Re claim 48, further comprising at least one spacer (7, Figs. 11,12 of Russian document ‘292) adjacent the axial forward end of the retainer, the at least one spacer adapted to form a seal with the at least two surfaces of the body portion.
Re claim 10, Russian document ‘292 discloses a bit (see Figs. 1-6, 11,12) comprising:
a body portion;
a generally cylindrical shank axially depending from a bottom of the body portion, the
shank comprising 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 of Russian document ‘292); and the axial forward end of the retainer comprising a solid circular end wall except for a single gap in the end wall formed by the first slot.
Russian document ‘292 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Russian document lacks at least one compression slot opposite the first slot of the retainer, the at least one compression slot extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, an axial length less than the axial length of the body portion; at least one chamfer at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer, the at least one chamfer comprising a chamfer length and a chamfer height, the chamfer length being greater than the chamfer height, the axial distance of the at least one compression slot being greater than the height of the at least one chamfer and the combination of the at least one chamfer and the at least one compression slot providing a radial direction of collapse of the axial distal end of the generally cylindrical hollow body portion upon the application of radial pressure to the outer surface of the retainer.
Beach et al. ‘649 teaches at least one compression slot (upper portion of 112, see marked up Figure 6 above) opposite the first slot (see marked up Figure 6 above) of the retainer, the at least one compression slot extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, an axial length less than the axial length of the body portion.
Ojanen teaches at least one chamfer (51, para 0040) at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer, the at least one chamfer comprising a chamfer length and a chamfer height, the chamfer length being greater than then chamfer height (see Figs. 5-9,15).
It would have been considered obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Russian document ‘292 to include
at least one compression slot opposite the first slot of the retainer, the at least one compression slot extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, an axial length less than the axial length of the body portion as taught by Beach et al. since such a modification facilitates the installation of the retainer into the block/holder by making the retainer more flexible.
It would have been considered obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Russian document ‘292 to have
at least one chamfer at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer, the at least one chamfer comprising a chamfer length and a chamfer height, the chamfer length being greater than then chamfer height as taught by Ojanen
since such a modification facilitates the installation of the retainer into the block/holder.
It should be noted that the above combination of references yield “the axial distance of the at least one compression slot being greater than the height of the at least one chamfer” and “the combination of the at least one chamfer and the at least one compression slot providing a radial direction of collapse of the axial distal end of the generally cylindrical hollow body portion upon the application of radial pressure to the outer surface of the retainer”.
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 Russian document ‘292).
Re claim 13, further comprising: a notch (lower portion of 112, see marked up Figure 6 above) 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, the notch comprising at least one of an arcuate configuration and an angular configuration.
Re claim 14, further comprising: the at least one compression slot (upper portion of 112, see marked up Figure 6 above) axially extending from the notch through the sidewall of
the retainer, the at least one compression slot disposed approximately 180 degrees from the first slot.
Re claim 15, the sidewall comprising at least one tab (9, Fig. 6 of Russian document ‘292) 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 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 of Russian document ‘292).
Re claim 29, further comprising: a washer (7, Figs. 11,12 of Russian document ‘292) 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 Figure 6 above).
Re claim 38, the at least one compression slot (see marked up Figure 6 above) comprising a variable axial length.
Re claim 39, further comprising: a second slot termination (see marked up Figure 6 above) disposed a predetermined distance from the distal end of the retainer along an axial length of the retainer.
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 Russian document ‘292).
Re claim 49, further comprising at least one spacer (7, Figs. 11,12 of Russian document ‘292) adjacent the axial forward end of the retainer, the at least one spacer adapted to form a seal with the at least two surfaces of the body portion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 46,47 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,10,22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on at least one reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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
8/21/2026
Prosecution Insights