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 13,14, 27 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 13 line 10, “the sidewall” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 13 lines 10, 12, “the retainer” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 14 is confusing because at line 3 claim 14 calls for “a second slot”; however, there was never a “first slot” previously recited.
Claim 27 line 3 calls for “a rear annular flange of the washer portion”; claim 21 line 14 calls for “a rear annular flange of the washer portion”; it is unclear if and how they are related. Claim 27 appears to claim duplicate subject matter since such language is substantially similar as what is called for in claim 21 line 14+.
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.
Claim(s) 1,3,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Sollami (US 20020092210).
Sollami discloses a bit comprising:a unitary body portion comprising a washer portion adjacent a distal end of the unitary body portion, the washer portion (see marked up drawing below) integrally formed as part of the unitary body portion; and a generally cylindrical shank (22”) depending from a bottom of the body portion (see Fig. 15), a rear annular flange (see marked up drawing below) of the washer portion adapted to form a close coupling with an annular surface at a forward end of a bit holder (see Figs. 1,4,15); and a tapered portion (see marked up Fig. below) adjacent the rear annular flange of the washer portion, the tapered portion adapted to contact a countersink at a forward end of a bore of a bit holder to radially align the bit with the bore of the bit holder (see Figs. 1,4,15).
Re claim 3, the tapered portion comprising a first angle that is adapted to be complementary to a second angle of the countersink of the bore of the bit holder (see Figs. 1,4,15).
Re claim 7, comprising: a generally cylindrical hollow retainer (38”) disposed circumferentially about the shank.
It should be noted that the above claims are directed to a bit not a bit in combination with a holder.
It has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
PNG
media_image1.png
570
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1,3,7,42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Frear (US 20060033379).
Frear discloses a bit comprising: a unitary body portion comprising a washer portion adjacent a distal end of the unitary body portion, the washer portion (see marked up Figure below) integrally formed as part of the unitary body portion; and a generally cylindrical shank (208) depending from a bottom of the body portion (see Fig. 6, 7, 20-24), a rear annular flange (see marked up Figure below) of the washer portion adapted to form a close coupling with an annular surface at a forward end of a bit holder (see Figs. 6,7,20-24), a tapered portion adjacent the rear annular flange of the washer portion, the tapered portion adapted to contact a countersink at a forward end of a bore of a bit holder to radially align the bit with the bore of the bit holder (see Figs. 7,20-24).
Re claim 3, the tapered portion comprising a first angle that is adapted to be complementary to a second angle of the countersink of the bore of the bit holder (see Figs. 7,20-24).
Re claim 7, comprising: a generally cylindrical hollow retainer (see Figs. 20-24) disposed circumferentially about the shank.
Re claim 42, a diameter of the washer portion being at least a diameter of a front face of a bit holder at a forward end of the bit holder (see Figs. 6,7).
It should be noted that the above claims are directed to a bit not a bit in combination with a holder.
It has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
It should be noted that a washer is a separate, thin, circular disc used to distribute load and prevent damage; however once it is “integrally formed with a unitary body portion” it is structurally the same as a “built-in” flange since it performs the washer's function but is integrated into the unitary body portion itself.
PNG
media_image2.png
702
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 21,23-24, 27-28,43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Sollami (US 20030137185).
Sollami ‘185 discloses a bit and bit holder combination (see Fig. 2) comprising:a bit holder comprising: a bit holder body portion comprising a front face at a forward end of the bit holder (near 66, see marked up Figure below); a generally cylindrical hollow bit holder shank (near 68, see marked up Figure below) axially depending from a bottom of the bit holder body portion; and a bore (near 70, see marked up Figure below) axially extending from the front face of the bit holder body portion to a distal end of the bit holder shank (see Fig. 2); and a bit comprising:a unitary bit body portion comprising a washer portion (28) adjacent a distal end of the unitary bit body portion, the washer portion integrally formed as part of the unitary bit body portion;
a rear annular flange (30) of the washer portion adapted to form a close coupling with the front face of the bit holder body portion at the forward end of the bit holder; a tapered portion (36) adjacent the rear annular flange of the washer portion, the tapered portion adapted to contact a countersink at the forward end of the bit holder (indirectly, see Figures 2,6, inasmuch as applicant’s figures 39,41 show this feature),
and a generally cylindrical bit shank (32, see marked up Figure below) depending from a bottom of the body portion, the bit shank disposed within the bore of the bit holder adjacent the front face of the bit holder.
Re claim 23, the tapered portion comprising a first angle that is complementary to a second angle of the countersink of the bore of the bit holder (see Figs. 2,6, see marked up Figure below).
Re claim 24, the tapered portion of the washer portion contacting the countersink of the bore of the bit holder to radially align the bit with the bore of the bit holder (indirectly, see Figures 2,6, inasmuch as applicant’s figures 39,41 show this feature).
Re claim 27, further comprising: a rear annular flange (30) of the washer portion forming a close coupling with an annular surface at a forward end of the bit holder (see Figs. 2,6).
Re claim 28, further comprising: a generally cylindrical hollow retainer (40) disposed circumferentially about the bit shank.
Re claim 43, a diameter of the washer portion being at least a diameter of a front face of a bit holder at a forward end of the bit holder (see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
896
392
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by WO document (WO 2011016765).
WO document ‘765 discloses a unitary body portion comprising a washer portion (112) adjacent a distal end of the unitary body portion, the washer portion integrally formed as part of the unitary body portion; a generally cylindrical shank (112, Figs. 3-4B) depending from a bottom of the body portion, the generally cylindrical shank comprising a generally cylindrical hollow retainer disposed circumferentially about the shank;
a tapered portion (128) adjacent a rear annular flange (114) of the washer portion, the tapered portion adapted to contact a countersink at a forward end of a bore of a bit holder to radially align the bit with the bore of the bit holder; and at least one tab (162) disposed on the sidewall of the retainer, the at least one tab extending axially and radially inwardly, the at least one tab adapted to engage a flange (126) on the shank of the bit to prevent the retainer from being removed from the shank.
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO document ‘765 in view of Beach et al. (US 4850649).
WO document ‘765 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, WO document ‘765 is silent about the retainer having a second slot axially extending from a notch through the sidewall of the retainer to a distal end of one of the at least one tab apertures.
Beach et al. teaches a retainer having a second slot (see marked up Figure below) axially extending from a notch (see marked up Figure below) through the sidewall of the retainer to a distal end of one of the at least one tab apertures.
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 WO document ‘765 to have the retainer having a second slot axially extending from a notch through the sidewall of the retainer to a distal end of one of the at least one tab apertures as taught by Beach et al. since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit/retainer into the tool holder and/or block.
PNG
media_image4.png
460
596
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 8,9, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sollami ‘210 in view of Bower, Jr. (US 4327947).
Sollami ‘210 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Sollami ‘210
is silent about the retainer further comprising: a first slot extending through a sidewall of the retainer from an axial forward end of the retainer to an axial distal end of the retainer; 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. Bower, Jr. ‘947 teaches a retainer (32) further comprising: a first slot extending through a sidewall of the retainer from an axial forward end of the retainer to an axial distal end of the retainer; 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 (see Fig. 2). 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 Sollami to have a first slot extending through a sidewall of the retainer from an axial forward end of the retainer to an axial distal end of the retainer; 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 as taught by Bower, Jr. since such a modification facilitates the insertion into the holder.
Re claim 9, 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. 2 of Bower, Jr.).
Re claim 18, further comprising: a gap profile of the retainer defined by the first radial end surface and the second radial end surface of the first slot (see Fig. 2 of Bower, Jr.).
Re claim 19, at least one of the first radial end surface and the second radial end surface of the first slot being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 2 of Bower, Jr.).
Re claim 20, the gap profile of the first slot being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 2 of Bower, Jr.).
PNG
media_image5.png
458
484
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 8,9,11,12,15 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frear ‘379 in view of Bower, Jr. (US 4327947).
Frear ‘379 discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see marked up Figure below). However, Frear ‘379 is silent about the retainer further comprising: 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. Bower, Jr. ‘947 teaches a retainer (32) further comprising: a first slot extending through a sidewall of the retainer from an axial forward end of the retainer to an axial distal end of the retainer; 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 (see Fig. 2). 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 Frear to have 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 as taught by Bower, Jr. since such a modification facilitates the insertion into the holder.
Re claim 9, 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. 2 of Bower, Jr.).
Re claim 11, further comprising:a notch opposite the axial forward end of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer (see Figs. 23,24 of Frear, see marked up Figure below).
Re claim 12, further comprising:a second slot 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 Figs. 23,24 of Frear, see marked up Figure below).
Re claim 15, wherein the notch is arcuate (see Figs. 23,24 of Frear, see marked up Figure below).
Re claim 18, further comprising: a gap profile of the retainer defined by the first radial end surface and the second radial end surface of the first slot (para 0082, 0110,
see Figs. 23,24 of Frear; Fig. 2 of Bower, Jr.).
Re claim 19, at least one of the first radial end surface and the second radial end surface of the first slot being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (0082, 0110, see Figs. 23,24 of Frear; Fig. 2 of Bower, Jr.).
Re claim 20, the gap profile of the first slot being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (0082, 0110, see Figs. 23,24 of Frear; Fig. 2 of Bower, Jr.).
PNG
media_image6.png
590
742
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
458
484
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 29,30,39-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sollami ‘185 in view of Bower, Jr. (US 4327947).
Sollami ‘185 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Sollami ‘185
is silent about the retainer further comprising: 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. Bower, Jr. ‘947 teaches a retainer (32) further comprising: a first slot extending through a sidewall of the retainer from an axial forward end of the retainer to an axial distal end of the retainer; 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 (see Fig. 2). 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 Sollami ‘185 to have 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 as taught by Bower, Jr. since such a modification facilitates the insertion into the holder.
Re claim 30, 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. 2 of Bower, Jr.).
Re claim 39, further comprising: a gap profile of the retainer defined by the first radial end surface and the second radial end surface of the first slot (see Fig. 2 of Sollami ‘185.).
Re claim 40, at least one of the first radial end surface and the second radial end surface of the first slot being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 2 of Sollami ‘185).
Re claim 41, the gap profile of the first slot being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 2 of Sollami ‘185.).
PNG
media_image5.png
458
484
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 4,5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sollami ‘210 in view of Sollami (CA 2959838) or WO document (WO 2011016765).
Sollami ‘210 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Sollami ‘210 is silent about further comprising:a transition radius of the washer portion extending from the rear annular flange to the tapered portion. Sollami ‘838 and WO document ‘765 both teach a transition radius of the washer portion extending from the rear annular flange to the tapered portion (see Figs. 5-13; Fig. 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 Sollami ‘210 to include a transition radius of the washer portion extending from the rear annular flange to the tapered portion as taught by either Sollami ‘838 or WO document ‘765 since such a modification reduces stress at the joint.
Re claim 5, Sollami ‘210 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Sollami ‘210 is silent about further comprising a transition radius extending from a shoulder at a distal end of the tapered portion to a forward end of the shank.
Sollami ‘838 and WO document ‘765 both teach a transition radius extending from a shoulder at a distal end of the tapered portion to a forward end of the shank (see Figs. 5-13; Fig. 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 Sollami ‘210 to include a transition radius extending from a shoulder at a distal end of the tapered portion to a forward end of the shank as taught by either Sollami ‘838 or WO document ‘765 since such a modification reduces stress at the joint.
Claim(s) 25,26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sollami ‘185 in view of Sollami (CA 2959838) or WO document (WO 2011016765).
Sollami ‘185 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Sollami ‘185 is silent about further comprising:a transition radius of the washer portion extending from the rear annular flange to the tapered portion. Sollami ‘838 and WO document ‘765 both teach a transition radius of the washer portion extending from the rear annular flange to the tapered portion (see Figs. 5-13; Fig. 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 Sollami ‘185 to include a transition radius of the washer portion extending from the rear annular flange to the tapered portion as taught by either Sollami ‘838 or WO document ‘765 since such a modification reduces stress at the joint.
Re claim 26, Sollami ‘185 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Sollami ‘185 is silent about further comprising a transition radius extending from a shoulder at a distal end of the tapered portion to a forward end of the shank.
Sollami ‘838 and WO document ‘765 both teach a transition radius extending from a shoulder at a distal end of the tapered portion to a forward end of the shank (see Figs. 5-13; Fig. 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 Sollami ‘185 to include a transition radius extending from a shoulder at a distal end of the tapered portion to a forward end of the shank as taught by either Sollami ‘838 or WO document ‘765 since such a modification reduces stress at the joint
Claim(s) 32-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sollami ‘185 in view of Bower, Jr. ‘947 as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Beach et al. ‘649.
Sollami ‘185 (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially. However, Sollami ‘185 (as modified above) is silent about further comprising:a notch opposite the axial forward end of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer. 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 (see Figs. 3,5,6). 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 Sollami ‘185 (as modified above) to further include:a notch opposite the axial forward end of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer as taught by Beach et al. since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the tool into the bore.
Re claim 33, further comprising:a second slot 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 Figs. 3,5,6 of Beach et al).
Re claim 34, Sollami ‘185 (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially. However, Sollami ‘185 (as modified above) is silent about further comprising:at least one tab disposed on the sidewall of the retainer, the at least one tab extending axially and radially inwardly, the at least one tab adapted to engage a flange on the bit shank of the bit to prevent the retainer from being removed from the bit shank.
Beach et al. teaches a retainer comprising: at least one tab (114) disposed on the sidewall of the retainer, the at least one tab extending axially and radially inwardly, the at least one tab adapted to engage a flange on the bit shank of the bit to prevent the retainer from being removed from the bit shank (see Figs. 2-6).
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 Sollami ‘185 (as modified above) to further include at least one tab disposed on the sidewall of the retainer, the at least one tab extending axially and radially inwardly, the at least one tab adapted to engage a flange on the bit shank as taught by Beach et al. since such a modification retains the bit in the bore.
Re claim 35, further comprising:at least one tab aperture (116) defined by the at least one tab; and a second slot axially extending from the notch through the sidewall of the retainer to a distal end of one of the at least one tab apertures (see Fig. 6 of Beach et al.).
Re claim 36, wherein the notch is arcuate (see Figs. 3,5,6 of Beach et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It should be noted that applicant did not rewrite claim 13 in independent form by including claims 1,7,8 and 13 combined. Therefore a new rejection has been issued above.
Applicant argues that Sollami ‘210 fails to teach "a rear annular flange of the washer portion adapted to form a close coupling with an annular surface at a forward end of a bit holder" and "a tapered portion adjacent the rear annular flange of the washer portion, the tapered portion adapted to contact a countersink at a forward end of a bore of a bit holder to radially align the bit with the bore of the bit holder".
The examiner disagrees. See marked up Figure 15 above that teaches "a rear annular flange of the washer portion adapted to form a close coupling with an annular surface at a forward end of a bit holder" (see Figs. 1,4, and marked up Figure 15 above) and "a tapered portion adjacent the rear annular flange of the washer portion, the tapered portion adapted to contact a countersink at a forward end of a bore of a bit holder to radially align the bit with the bore of the bit holder"(see Figs. 1,4, and marked up Figure 15 above).
It should be noted that the above claims are directed to a bit not a bit in combination with a holder. It has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. Therefore, the above claimed limitations directed to the “bit” are disclosed by Sollami ‘210. Clearly the bit disclosed by Sollami ‘210 (Fig. 15) discloses a rear annular flange (see marked up figure 15 above) of the washer portion adapted to form a close coupling with an annular surface at a forward end of a bit holder" (see Figs. 1,4, and marked up Figure 15 above) and "a tapered portion (see marked up figure 15 above) adjacent the rear annular flange of the washer portion, the tapered portion adapted to contact a countersink at a forward end of a bore of a bit holder to radially align the bit with the bore of the bit holder" (see Figs. 1,4, and marked up Figure 15 above).
Applicant argues that Frear ‘379 fails to teach "a rear annular flange of the washer portion adapted to form a close coupling with an annular surface at a forward end of a bit holder" and "a tapered portion adjacent the rear annular flange of the washer portion, the tapered portion adapted to contact a countersink at a forward end of a bore of a bit holder to radially align the bit with the bore of the bit holder".
The examiner disagrees. See marked up Figure 7 above that teaches "a rear annular flange of the washer portion adapted to form a close coupling with an annular surface at a forward end of a bit holder" (see marked up Figure 15 above) and "a tapered portion adjacent the rear annular flange of the washer portion, the tapered portion adapted to contact a countersink at a forward end of a bore of a bit holder to radially align the bit with the bore of the bit holder"(see marked up Figure 15 above).
It should be noted that the above claims are directed to a bit not a bit in combination with a holder. It has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. Therefore, the above claimed limitations directed to the “bit” are disclosed by Frear ‘379. Clearly the bit disclosed by Frear ‘379 (Figs. 6,7,20-24 and marked up Figure 7 above) shows a rear annular flange (see marked up figure 7 above) of the washer portion adapted to form a close coupling with an annular surface at a forward end of a bit holder" (see marked up Figure 7 above) and "a tapered portion (see marked up figure 7 above) adjacent the rear annular flange of the washer portion, the tapered portion adapted to contact a countersink at a forward end of a bore of a bit holder to radially align the bit with the bore of the bit holder" (see marked up Figure 7 above).
It should be noted that a washer is a separate, thin, circular disc used to distribute load and prevent damage; however once it is “integrally formed with a unitary body portion” it is structurally the same as a “built-in” flange since it performs the washer's function but is integrated into the unitary body portion itself.
Applicant argues that Sollami ‘185 fails to teach "a rear annular flange of the washer portion adapted to form a close coupling with an annular surface at a forward end of a bit holder" and "a tapered portion adjacent the rear annular flange of the washer portion, the tapered portion adapted to contact a countersink at a forward end of a bore of a bit holder to radially align the bit with the bore of the bit holder".
The examiner disagrees. See marked up Figure 2 above that teaches "a rear annular flange (30) of the washer portion adapted to form a close coupling with an annular surface at a forward end of a bit holder" (see marked up Figure 2 above) and "a tapered portion adjacent the rear annular flange of the washer portion, the tapered portion adapted to contact a countersink at a forward end of a bore of a bit holder to radially align the bit with the bore of the bit holder"(see marked up Figure 2 above).
Applicant argues the combination of Sollami ‘210 and Bower, Jr. ‘947 fail to teach the claimed subject matter called for in claims 8,9,18-20 since Sollami ‘210 fails to teach claim 1. The examiner disagrees. See above response to arguments pertaining to Sollami ‘210 and rejection of claim 1 wherein it explains why Sollami ‘210 teaches claim 1.
Applicant argues the combination of Frear ‘379 and Bower, Jr. ‘947 fail to teach the claimed subject matter called for in claims 8,9,11-12, 15, 18-20 since Frear ‘379 fails to teach claim 1. The examiner disagrees. See above response to arguments pertaining to Frear ‘379 and rejection of claim 1 wherein it explains why Frear ‘379 teaches claim 1.
Applicant argues the combination of Sollami ‘185 and Bower, Jr. ‘947 fail to teach the claimed subject matter called for in claims 29-30,39-41 since Sollami ‘185 fails to teach claim 21. The examiner disagrees. See above response to arguments pertaining to Sollami ‘185 and rejection of claim 21 wherein it explains why Sollami ‘185 teaches claim 21.
Applicant argues the combination of Sollami ‘210 and either Sollami CA ‘838 or WO ‘765 fail to teach the claimed subject matter called for in claims 4,5 since Sollami ‘210 fails to teach claim 1. The examiner disagrees. See above response to arguments pertaining to Sollami ‘210 and rejection of claim 1 wherein it explains why Sollami ‘210 teaches claim 1.
Applicant argues the combination of Sollami ‘185 and either Sollami CA ‘838 or WO ‘765 fail to teach the claimed subject matter called for in claims 25,26 since Sollami ‘185 fails to teach claim 21. The examiner disagrees. See above response to arguments pertaining to Sollami ‘185 and rejection of claim 21 wherein it explains why Sollami ‘210 teaches claim 21.
Applicant argues the combination of Sollami ‘185 in view of Bower, Jr. ‘947 and Beach et al. ‘649 fail to teach the claimed subject matter called for in claims 32-36 since Sollami ‘185 fails to teach claim 21. The examiner disagrees. See above response to arguments pertaining to Sollami ‘185 and rejection of claim 21 wherein it explains why Sollami ‘185 teaches claim 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 31 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 10 in independent form includes claims 1,7,8,10 combined. This requires modifying Sollami ‘210 with the retainer structure of Bower Jr. ‘947, it is not obvious to further modify the retainer to include a chamfer distal end as taught by Sollami ‘495 since the retainer of the combination is already in a recessed area of the shank. This rationale similarly applies to claim 31.
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
5/8/2026
Prosecution Insights