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 6,7,10,24,25,28 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 6 line 2 calls for “at least one tab”; claim 1 line 9 calls for “at least two tabs”; it is unclear if and how they are related.
Claim 24 line 2 calls for “at least one tab”; claim 19 line 12 calls for “at least two tabs”; it is unclear if and how they are related.
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) 1,6,7,19,24,25,37,38,41-47, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German document (DE 102008052389) in view of Ojanen (US 7380888).
German document ‘389 discloses a retainer comprising: a generally cylindrical hollow body portion (135) including an axial forward end and an axial distal end; a first slot (see marked up Figure below) extending through a sidewall of the body portion from the axial forward end to the axial distal end; and a chamfer (see marked up Figure below) extending from the axial distal end to an outer surface of the retainer, the chamfer adapted to aid in insertion of one of a bit into a bore of a bit holder and a bit into a bore of a base block (see Figs. 1-4, see marked up Figure below); and three tabs equally spaced from one another (16, see Figs. 3,4, similar to applicants 45, depicted in Figs 1-5).
German document ‘389 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, German document ‘389 is silent about at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot.
Ojanen ‘888 teaches at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot (see Fig. 9).
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 German document ‘389 to have at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot as taught by Ojanen ‘888 since such a modification better handle axial loads and rotational stresses, provide structural integrity and manufacturing simplicity.
Re claim 6, further comprising: at least one tab (16) extending axially, radially, and inwardly towards the axial distal end of the retainer, 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 (see abstract).
Re claim 7, further comprising: at least one tab aperture defined by the at least one tab (see Figs. 1-2, where tab 16 is position, an aperture is shown).
Re claim 19, German document ‘389 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 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; and a chamfer extending from the axial distal end to an outer surface of the retainer, the chamfer adapted to aid in insertion of one of the bit into a bore of a bit holder and the bit into a bore of a base block (see Figs. 1-4, German document ‘389); and three tabs equally spaced from one another (see Figs. 1-4, German document ‘389).
German document ‘389 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, German document ‘389 is silent about at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot.
Ojanen ‘888 teaches at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot (see Fig. 9).
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 German document ‘389 to have at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot as taught by Ojanen ‘888 since such a modification better handle axial loads and rotational stresses, provide structural integrity and manufacturing simplicity.
Re claim 24, further comprising: at least one tab extending axially, radially, and inwardly towards the axial distal end of the retainer, 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 (see Figs. 1-4, German document ‘389).
Re claim 25, further comprising: at least one tab aperture defined by the at least one tab (see Figs. 1-4, German document ‘389).
Re claim 37, further comprising: at least one spacer (30, Fig. 1, German document ‘389) disposed circumferentially about the shank between the bottom of the body portion and the axial forward end of the retainer.
Re claim 38, the at least one spacer comprising one of a nearly butted annular hollow spacer and a solid annular hollow spacer (see Fig. 1, German document ‘389).
Re claim 41, further comprising: a gap profile defined by a first radial end surface of the first slot and a second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface of the first slot (see Fig. 2, see marked up Figure below).
Re claim 42, at least one of a first radial end surface of the first slot and the second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 2, German document ‘389).
Re claim 43, the gap profile of the first slot being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 2, German document ‘389).
Re claim 44, the retainer further comprising: a gap profile defined by a first radial end surface of the first slot and a second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface of the first slot (see Fig. 2, German document ‘389).
Re claim 45, at least one of the first radial end surface and the second radial end surface of the first slot of the retainer being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 2, German document ‘389).
Re claim 46, the gap profile of the first slot being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 2, German document ‘389).
Re claim 47, further comprising: a washer (30, Fig. 1, German document ‘389) disposed circumferentially about the shank adjacent the bottom of the body portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
534
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1,6,7,19,24,25,37,38,41-47, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German document (DE 102008052389) in view of German document (DE 102010017587).
German document ‘389 discloses a retainer comprising: a generally cylindrical hollow body portion (135) including an axial forward end and an axial distal end; a first slot (see marked up Figure below) extending through a sidewall of the body portion from the axial forward end to the axial distal end; and a chamfer (see marked up Figure below) extending from the axial distal end to an outer surface of the retainer, the chamfer adapted to aid in insertion of one of a bit into a bore of a bit holder and a bit into a bore of a base block (see Figs. 1-4, see marked up Figure below); and three tabs equally spaced from one another (16, see Figs. 3,4, similar to applicants 45, depicted in Figs 1-5).
German document ‘389 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, German document ‘389 is silent about at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot.
German document ‘587 teaches at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot (see Fig. 5).
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 German document ‘389 to have at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot as taught by German document ‘587 since such a modification better handle axial loads and rotational stresses, provide structural integrity and manufacturing simplicity.
Re claim 6, further comprising: at least one tab (16) extending axially, radially, and inwardly towards the axial distal end of the retainer, 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 (see abstract).
Re claim 7, further comprising: at least one tab aperture defined by the at least one tab (see Figs. 1-2, where tab 16 is position, an aperture is shown).
Re claim 19, German document ‘389 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 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; and a chamfer extending from the axial distal end to an outer surface of the retainer, the chamfer adapted to aid in insertion of one of the bit into a bore of a bit holder and the bit into a bore of a base block (see Figs. 1-4, German document ‘389); and three tabs equally spaced from one another (see Figs. 1-4, German document ‘389).
German document ‘389 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, German document ‘389 is silent about at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot.
German document ‘587 teaches at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot (see Fig. 5).
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 German document ‘389 to have at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot as taught by German document ‘587 since such a modification better handle axial loads and rotational stresses, provide structural integrity and manufacturing simplicity.
Re claim 24, further comprising: at least one tab extending axially, radially, and inwardly towards the axial distal end of the retainer, 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 (see Figs. 1-4, German document ‘389).
Re claim 25, further comprising: at least one tab aperture defined by the at least one tab (see Figs. 1-4, German document ‘389).
Re claim 37, further comprising: at least one spacer (30, Fig. 1, German document ‘389) disposed circumferentially about the shank between the bottom of the body portion and the axial forward end of the retainer.
Re claim 38, the at least one spacer comprising one of a nearly butted annular hollow spacer and a solid annular hollow spacer (see Fig. 1, German document ‘389).
Re claim 41, further comprising: a gap profile defined by a first radial end surface of the first slot and a second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface of the first slot (see Fig. 2, see marked up Figure below).
Re claim 42, at least one of a first radial end surface of the first slot and the second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 2, German document ‘389).
Re claim 43, the gap profile of the first slot being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 2, German document ‘389).
Re claim 44, the retainer further comprising: a gap profile defined by a first radial end surface of the first slot and a second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface of the first slot (see Fig. 2, German document ‘389).
Re claim 45, at least one of the first radial end surface and the second radial end surface of the first slot of the retainer being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 2, German document ‘389).
Re claim 46, the gap profile of the first slot being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 2, German document ‘389).
Re claim 47, further comprising: a washer (30, Fig. 1, German document ‘389) disposed circumferentially about the shank adjacent the bottom of the body portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
534
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1,6,7,19,24,25,37,38,41-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP document (EP 2789794) in view of Ojanen (US 7380888).
EP document ‘794 discloses a retainer comprising: a generally cylindrical hollow body portion (40, see Figs. 2,4) including an axial forward end and an axial distal end; a first slot (see marked up Figure below) extending through a sidewall of the body portion from the axial forward end to the axial distal end; and a chamfer (see marked up Figure below) extending from the axial distal end to an outer surface of the retainer, the chamfer adapted to aid in insertion of one of a bit into a bore of a bit holder and a bit into a bore of a base block (see Figs. 2,4); and tabs spaced from one another (see Figs. 2,4,).
EP document ‘794 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, EP document ‘794 is silent about at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot.
Ojanen ‘888 teaches at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot (see Fig. 9).
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 EP document ‘794 to have at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot as taught by Ojanen ‘888 since such a modification better handle axial loads and rotational stresses, provide structural integrity and manufacturing simplicity.
Re claim 6, further comprising: at least one tab (42, see marked up Figure below) extending axially, radially, and inwardly towards the axial distal end of the retainer, 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 7, further comprising: at least one tab aperture defined by the at least one tab (see Figs. 2,4).
Re claim 19, EP document ‘794 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 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; and a chamfer extending from the axial distal end to an outer surface of the retainer, the chamfer adapted to aid in insertion of one of the bit into a bore of a bit holder and the bit into a bore of a base block (see Figs. 2,4); and tabs spaced from one another (see Figs. 2,4,).
EP document ‘794 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, EP document ‘794 is silent about at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot.
Ojanen ‘888 teaches at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot (see Fig. 9).
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 EP document ‘794 to have at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot as taught by Ojanen ‘888 since such a modification better handle axial loads and rotational stresses, provide structural integrity and manufacturing simplicity.
Re claim 24, further comprising: at least one tab extending axially, radially, and inwardly towards the axial distal end of the retainer, 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 (see Figs. 2,4, EP document ‘794).
Re claim 25, further comprising: at least one tab aperture defined by the at least one tab (see Figs. 2,4, EP document ‘794).
Re claim 37, further comprising: at least one spacer (20, Figs. 2,4, EP document ‘794) disposed circumferentially about the shank between the bottom of the body portion and the axial forward end of the retainer.
Re claim 38, the at least one spacer comprising one of a nearly butted annular hollow spacer and a solid annular hollow spacer (20, see Figs. 2,4, EP document ‘794).
Re claim 41, further comprising: a gap profile defined by a first radial end surface of the first slot and a second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface of the first slot (see Fig. 2, see marked up Figure below)
Re claim 42, at least one of a first radial end surface of the first slot and the second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 2, EP document ‘794).
Re claim 43, the gap profile of the first slot being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 2, EP document ‘794).
Re claim 44, the retainer further comprising: a gap profile defined by a first radial end surface of the first slot and a second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface of the first slot (see Fig. 2, EP document ‘794).
Re claim 45, at least one of the first radial end surface and the second radial end surface of the first slot of the retainer being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 2, EP document ‘794).
Re claim 46, the gap profile of the first slot being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 2, EP document ‘794).
Re claim 47, further comprising: a washer (30, Fig. 1, EP document ‘794) disposed circumferentially about the shank adjacent the bottom of the body portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
854
802
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1,6,7,19,24,25,37,38,41-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP document (EP 2789794) in view of German document (DE 102010017587).
EP document ‘794 discloses a retainer comprising: a generally cylindrical hollow body portion (40, see Figs. 2,4) including an axial forward end and an axial distal end; a first slot (see marked up Figure below) extending through a sidewall of the body portion from the axial forward end to the axial distal end; and a chamfer (see marked up Figure below) extending from the axial distal end to an outer surface of the retainer, the chamfer adapted to aid in insertion of one of a bit into a bore of a bit holder and a bit into a bore of a base block (see Figs. 2,4); and tabs spaced from one another (see Figs. 2,4,).
EP document ‘794 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, EP document ‘794 is silent about at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot.
German document ‘587 teaches at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot (see Fig. 5).
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 EP document ‘794 to have at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot as taught by German document ‘587 since such a modification better handle axial loads and rotational stresses, provide structural integrity and manufacturing simplicity.
Re claim 6, further comprising: at least one tab (42, see marked up Figure below) extending axially, radially, and inwardly towards the axial distal end of the retainer, 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 7, further comprising: at least one tab aperture defined by the at least one tab (see Figs. 2,4).
Re claim 19, EP document ‘794 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 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; and a chamfer extending from the axial distal end to an outer surface of the retainer, the chamfer adapted to aid in insertion of one of the bit into a bore of a bit holder and the bit into a bore of a base block (see Figs. 2,4); and tabs spaced from one another (see Figs. 2,4,).
EP document ‘794 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, EP document ‘794 is silent about at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot.
German document ‘587 teaches at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot (see Fig. 5).
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 EP document ‘794 to have at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot as taught by German document ‘587 since such a modification better handle axial loads and rotational stresses, provide structural integrity and manufacturing simplicity.
Re claim 24, further comprising: at least one tab extending axially, radially, and inwardly towards the axial distal end of the retainer, 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 (see Figs. 2,4, EP document ‘794).
Re claim 25, further comprising: at least one tab aperture defined by the at least one tab (see Figs. 2,4, EP document ‘794).
Re claim 37, further comprising: at least one spacer (20, Figs. 2,4, EP document ‘794) disposed circumferentially about the shank between the bottom of the body portion and the axial forward end of the retainer.
Re claim 38, the at least one spacer comprising one of a nearly butted annular hollow spacer and a solid annular hollow spacer (20, see Figs. 2,4, EP document ‘794).
Re claim 41, further comprising: a gap profile defined by a first radial end surface of the first slot and a second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface of the first slot (see Fig. 2, see marked up Figure below)
Re claim 42, at least one of a first radial end surface of the first slot and the second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 2, EP document ‘794).
Re claim 43, the gap profile of the first slot being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 2, EP document ‘794).
Re claim 44, the retainer further comprising: a gap profile defined by a first radial end surface of the first slot and a second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface of the first slot (see Fig. 2, EP document ‘794).
Re claim 45, at least one of the first radial end surface and the second radial end surface of the first slot of the retainer being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 2, EP document ‘794).
Re claim 46, the gap profile of the first slot being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 2, EP document ‘794).
Re claim 47, further comprising: a washer (30, Fig. 1, EP document ‘794) disposed circumferentially about the shank adjacent the bottom of the body portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
854
802
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1,6,7,19,24,25,37,38,41-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sollami (US 20070152495) in view of Ojanen ‘888.
Sollami ‘495 discloses the invention substantially as claimed (See Figs. 3-5, see marked up Figures below). However, Sollami ‘495 is silent about at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot.
Ojanen ‘888 teaches at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot (see Fig. 9).
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 ‘495 to have at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot as taught by Ojanen ‘888 since such a modification better handle axial loads and rotational stresses, provide structural integrity and manufacturing simplicity.
Claim(s) 1,6,7,19,24,25,37,38,41-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sollami (US 20070152495) in view of German document (DE 102010017587).
Sollami ‘495 discloses the invention substantially as claimed (See Figs. 3-5, see marked up Figures below). However, Sollami ‘495 is silent about at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot.
German document ‘587 teaches at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot (see Fig. 5).
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 ‘495 to have at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot as taught by German document ‘587 since such a modification better handle axial loads and rotational stresses, provide structural integrity and manufacturing simplicity.
PNG
media_image3.png
710
446
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
458
606
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1,6,7,19,24,25,37,38,41-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German document (DE 10040562) in view of Ojanen ‘888.
German document ‘562 discloses the invention substantially as claimed (See Figs 1-3, see marked up Figures below). However, German document ‘562 is silent about at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot.
Ojanen ‘888 teaches at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot (see Fig. 9).
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 German document ‘562 to have at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot as taught by Ojanen ‘888 since such a modification better handle axial loads and rotational stresses, provide structural integrity and manufacturing simplicity.
Claim(s) 1,6,7,19,24,25,37,38,41-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German document (DE 10040562) in view of German document (DE 102010017587).
German document ‘562 discloses the invention substantially as claimed (See Figs 1-3, see marked up Figures below). However, German document ‘562 is silent about at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot.
German document ‘587 teaches at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot (see Fig. 5).
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 German document ‘562 to have at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot as taught by German document ‘587 since such a modification better handle axial loads and rotational stresses, provide structural integrity and manufacturing simplicity.
PNG
media_image5.png
400
616
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2,3,20,21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP document ‘794 in view of Ojanen ‘888 as applied to claims 1,19 above, and further in view of Bower, Jr. (US 4327947).
EP document ‘794 (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, EP document ‘794 (as modified above) lacks a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a first radial end surface of a 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.
Bower, Jr. teaches a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a first radial end surface of a 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. 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 further modify EP document (as modified above) to include a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a first radial end surface of a 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 Bower, Jr. since such a modification facilitates the installation of the retainer.
Re claim 3 , 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 claims 20,21 see discussion above.
Claim(s) 2,3,20,21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP document ‘794 in view of German document ‘587 as applied to claims 1,19 above, and further in view of Bower Jr. ‘947.
EP document ‘794 (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, EP document ‘794 (as modified above) lacks a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a first radial end surface of a 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.
Bower, Jr. teaches a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a first radial end surface of a 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. 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 further modify EP document (as modified above) to include a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a first radial end surface of a 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 Bower, Jr. since such a modification facilitates the installation of the retainer.
Re claim 3 , 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 claims 20,21 see discussion above.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German document ‘389 in view of Ojanen ‘888 as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Latham (US 20040004389).
German document ‘389 (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, German document ‘389 (as modified above) is silent about a distal end of the at least one spacer contacting the axial forward end of the retainer. Latham teaches silent about a distal end of the at least one spacer contacting the axial forward end of the retainer (see 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 further modify German document ‘389 (as modified above) to include a distal end of the at least one spacer contacting the axial forward end of the retainer as taught by Latham since such a modification reduces debris from interfering with the tool rotation.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German document ‘389 in view of German document ‘587 as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Latham (US 20040004389).
German document ‘389 (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, German document ‘389 (as modified above) is silent about a distal end of the at least one spacer contacting the axial forward end of the retainer. Latham teaches silent about a distal end of the at least one spacer contacting the axial forward end of the retainer (see 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 further modify German document ‘389 (as modified above) to include a distal end of the at least one spacer contacting the axial forward end of the retainer as taught by Latham since such a modification reduces debris from interfering with the tool rotation.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7,10,17,19,22-25,28,35,41-46,48,49,52,55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach et al. ‘649 in view of German document ‘562 and Ojanen ‘888.
Beach et al. ‘649 discloses a retainer comprising: a generally cylindrical hollow body portion (see Figs. 2-6) including an axial forward end and an axial distal end; a first slot (See marked up Figure below) extending through a sidewall of the body portion from the axial forward end to the axial distal end and three tabs spaced from one another (114, Fig. 6).
Beach et al. ‘649 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Beach et al. is silent about including a chamfer extending from the axial distal end to an outer surface of the retainer, the chamfer adapted to aid in insertion of one of a bit into a bore of a bit holder and a bit into a bore of a base block. Further, Beach et al. is silent about at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot.
German document ‘562 teaches about including a chamfer extending from the axial distal end to an outer surface of the retainer, the chamfer (23, see machine translation in particular section describing chamfers ease insertion of sleeves into bore of bit holder) adapted to aid in insertion of one of a bit into a bore of a bit holder and a bit into a bore of a base block (see Figs. 1,2).
Ojanen ‘888 teaches at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot (see Fig. 9).
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. ‘649 to include
a chamfer extending from the axial distal end to an outer surface of the retainer as taught by German document ‘562 since such a modification aid in insertion of the tool.
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. ‘649 to have at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot as taught by Ojanen ‘888 since such a modification better handle axial loads and rotational stresses, provide structural integrity and manufacturing simplicity.
Re claim 4, further comprising: an angular notch (72,92,112) extending from the axial distal end of the retainer approximately 180 degrees from the first slot of the retainer (see Figs.3,5,6 Beach et al.), the angular notch comprising a variable axial length.
Re claim 5, further comprising: a first angled side of the angular notch extending from a first location at the axial distal end of the retainer to a vertex axially inward from the axial distal end of the retainer; and a second angled side of the angular notch adjacent the first angled side, the second angled side extending from a second location at the axial distal end of the retainer to the vertex, the first location spaced from the second location at the axial distal end of the retainer (see Figs.3,5,6 Beach et al.).
Re claim 6, further comprising: at least one tab (114, Beach et al. Fig. 6) extending axially, radially, and inwardly towards the axial distal end of the retainer, 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 7, further comprising: at least one tab aperture defined by the at least one tab (116, Beach et al. Fig. 6).
Re claim 10, further comprising: an angular notch (see marked up Figure below) extending from the axial distal end of the retainer approximately 180 degrees from the first slot of the retainer, the angular notch comprising a variable axial length; and a second slot (see marked up Figure below) axially extending from a vertex of the angular notch through the sidewall of the retainer to a second slot termination, the second slot comprising a variable axial length and disposed approximately 180 degrees from the first slot, and the second slot termination disposed a predetermined distance from the axial distal end of the retainer.
Re claim 17, further comprising: a notch (72,92,112) opposite the first slot of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, the notch comprising a variable axial length.
Re claim 19, Beach et al. 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 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 (see Figs. 2-6), and three tabs spaced from one another (114, Fig. 6).
Beach et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Beach et al. is silent about including a chamfer extending from the axial distal end to an outer surface of the retainer, the chamfer adapted to aid in insertion of one of a bit into a bore of a bit holder and a bit into a bore of a base block.
Further, Beach et al. is silent about at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot.
German document ‘562 teaches about including a chamfer extending from the axial distal end to an outer surface of the retainer, the chamfer (23, see machine translation in particular section describing chamfers ease insertion of sleeves into bore of bit holder) adapted to aid in insertion of one of a bit into a bore of a bit holder and a bit into a bore of a base block (see Figs. 1,2).
Ojanen ‘888 teaches at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot (see Fig. 9).
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. ‘649 to include
a chamfer extending from the axial distal end to an outer surface of the retainer as taught by German document ‘562 since such a modification aid in insertion of the tool.
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. ‘649 to have at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot as taught by Ojanen ‘888 since such a modification better handle axial loads and rotational stresses, provide structural integrity and manufacturing simplicity.
Re claim 22, further comprising: an angular notch (72,92,112) extending from the axial distal end of the retainer approximately 180 degrees from the first slot of the retainer (see Figs.3,5,6 Beach et al.), the angular notch comprising a variable axial length.
Re claim 23, further comprising: a first angled side of the angular notch extending from a first location at the axial distal end of the retainer to a vertex axially inward from the axial distal end of the retainer; and a second angled side of the angular notch adjacent the first angled side, the second angled side extending from a second location at the axial distal end of the retainer to the vertex, the first location spaced from the second location at the axial distal end of the retainer (see Figs.3,5,6 Beach et al.).
Re claim 24, further comprising: at least one tab extending axially, radially, and inwardly towards the axial distal end of the retainer, 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 (114, see Fig. 6 of Beach et al.).
Re claim 25, further comprising: at least one tab aperture defined by the at least one tab (116, see Fig. 6 of Beach et al.).
Re claim 28, further comprising: an angular notch extending from the axial distal end of the retainer approximately 180 degrees from the first slot of the retainer, the angular notch comprising a variable axial length; and a second slot axially extending from a vertex of the angular notch through the sidewall of the retainer to a second slot termination, the second slot comprising a variable axial length and disposed approximately 180 degrees from the first slot and the second slot termination disposed a predetermined distance from the axial distal end of the retainer (see marked up Figure below).
Re claim 35, further comprising: a notch (72,92,112) opposite the first slot of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, the notch comprising a variable axial length.
Re claim 41, further comprising: a gap profile defined by a first radial end surface of the first slot and a second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface of the first slot (see Fig. 3,5,6, of Beach et al.)
Re claim 42, at least one of a first radial end surface of the first slot and the second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 3,5,6, of Beach et al.).
Re claim 43, the gap profile of the first slot being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 3,5,6 of Beach et al.).
Re claim 44, the retainer further comprising: a gap profile defined by a first radial end surface of the first slot and a second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface of the first slot (see Fig. 3,5,6 of Beach et al.).
Re claim 45, at least one of the first radial end surface and the second radial end surface of the first slot of the retainer being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 3,5,6 of Beach et al.).
Re claim 46, the gap profile of the first slot being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 3,5,6 of Beach et al.).
Re claim 48, further comprising: a second slot (see marked up Figure below) axially extending from the angular notch through the sidewall of the retainer to a second slot termination, the second slot comprising a variable axial length and the second slot termination disposed a predetermined distance from the axial distal end of the retainer.
Re claim 49, further comprising: a second slot (see marked up Figure below) disposed approximately 180 degrees from the first slot of the retainer, the second slot extending from the notch through the sidewall of the retainer, the second slot comprising a variable axial length; and a second slot termination of the second slot disposed a predetermined distance from the axial distal end of the retainer along an axial length of the retainer.
Re claim 52, further comprising: a second slot (see marked up Figure below) axially extending from the angular notch through the sidewall of the retainer to a second slot termination, the second slot comprising a variable axial length and the second slot termination disposed a predetermined distance from the axial distal end of the retainer.
Re claim 55, further comprising: a second slot (see marked up Figure below) disposed approximately 180 degrees from the first slot of the retainer, the second slot extending from the notch through the sidewall of the retainer, the second slot comprising a variable axial length; and a second slot termination of the second slot disposed a predetermined distance from the axial distal end of the retainer along an axial length of the retainer.
PNG
media_image6.png
456
608
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
242
502
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 4-7,10,17,19,22-25,28,35,41-46,48,49,52,55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach et al. ‘649 in view of German document ‘562 and German document ‘587
Beach et al. ‘649 discloses a retainer comprising: a generally cylindrical hollow body portion (see Figs. 2-6) including an axial forward end and an axial distal end; a first slot (See marked up Figure below) extending through a sidewall of the body portion from the axial forward end to the axial distal end and three tabs spaced from one another (114, Fig. 6).
Beach et al. ‘649 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Beach et al. is silent about including a chamfer extending from the axial distal end to an outer surface of the retainer, the chamfer adapted to aid in insertion of one of a bit into a bore of a bit holder and a bit into a bore of a base block. Further, Beach et al. is silent about at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot.
German document ‘562 teaches about including a chamfer extending from the axial distal end to an outer surface of the retainer, the chamfer (23, see machine translation in particular section describing chamfers ease insertion of sleeves into bore of bit holder) adapted to aid in insertion of one of a bit into a bore of a bit holder and a bit into a bore of a base block (see Figs. 1,2).
German document ‘587 teaches at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot (see Fig. 5).
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. ‘649 to include
a chamfer extending from the axial distal end to an outer surface of the retainer as taught by German document ‘562 since such a modification aid in insertion of the tool.
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. ‘649 to have at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot as taught by German document ‘587 since such a modification better handle axial loads and rotational stresses, provide structural integrity and manufacturing simplicity.
Re claim 4, further comprising: an angular notch (72,92,112) extending from the axial distal end of the retainer approximately 180 degrees from the first slot of the retainer (see Figs.3,5,6 Beach et al.), the angular notch comprising a variable axial length.
Re claim 5, further comprising: a first angled side of the angular notch extending from a first location at the axial distal end of the retainer to a vertex axially inward from the axial distal end of the retainer; and a second angled side of the angular notch adjacent the first angled side, the second angled side extending from a second location at the axial distal end of the retainer to the vertex, the first location spaced from the second location at the axial distal end of the retainer (see Figs.3,5,6 Beach et al.).
Re claim 6, further comprising: at least one tab (114, Beach et al. Fig. 6) extending axially, radially, and inwardly towards the axial distal end of the retainer, 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 7, further comprising: at least one tab aperture defined by the at least one tab (116, Beach et al. Fig. 6).
Re claim 10, further comprising: an angular notch (see marked up Figure below) extending from the axial distal end of the retainer approximately 180 degrees from the first slot of the retainer, the angular notch comprising a variable axial length; and a second slot (see marked up Figure below) axially extending from a vertex of the angular notch through the sidewall of the retainer to a second slot termination, the second slot comprising a variable axial length and disposed approximately 180 degrees from the first slot, and the second slot termination disposed a predetermined distance from the axial distal end of the retainer.
Re claim 17, further comprising: a notch (72,92,112) opposite the first slot of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, the notch comprising a variable axial length.
Re claim 19, Beach et al. 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 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 (see Figs. 2-6), and three tabs spaced from one another (114, Fig. 6).
Beach et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Beach et al. is silent about including a chamfer extending from the axial distal end to an outer surface of the retainer, the chamfer adapted to aid in insertion of one of a bit into a bore of a bit holder and a bit into a bore of a base block.
Further, Beach et al. is silent about at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot.
German document ‘562 teaches about including a chamfer extending from the axial distal end to an outer surface of the retainer, the chamfer (23, see machine translation in particular section describing chamfers ease insertion of sleeves into bore of bit holder) adapted to aid in insertion of one of a bit into a bore of a bit holder and a bit into a bore of a base block (see Figs. 1,2).
German document ‘587 teaches at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot (see Fig. 9).
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. ‘649 to include
a chamfer extending from the axial distal end to an outer surface of the retainer as taught by German document ‘562 since such a modification aid in insertion of the tool.
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. ‘649 to have at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot as taught by German document ‘587 since such a modification better handle axial loads and rotational stresses, provide structural integrity and manufacturing simplicity.
Re claim 22, further comprising: an angular notch (72,92,112) extending from the axial distal end of the retainer approximately 180 degrees from the first slot of the retainer (see Figs.3,5,6 Beach et al.), the angular notch comprising a variable axial length.
Re claim 23, further comprising: a first angled side of the angular notch extending from a first location at the axial distal end of the retainer to a vertex axially inward from the axial distal end of the retainer; and a second angled side of the angular notch adjacent the first angled side, the second angled side extending from a second location at the axial distal end of the retainer to the vertex, the first location spaced from the second location at the axial distal end of the retainer (see Figs.3,5,6 Beach et al.).
Re claim 24, further comprising: at least one tab extending axially, radially, and inwardly towards the axial distal end of the retainer, 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 (114, see Fig. 6 of Beach et al.).
Re claim 25, further comprising: at least one tab aperture defined by the at least one tab (116, see Fig. 6 of Beach et al.).
Re claim 28, further comprising: an angular notch extending from the axial distal end of the retainer approximately 180 degrees from the first slot of the retainer, the angular notch comprising a variable axial length; and a second slot axially extending from a vertex of the angular notch through the sidewall of the retainer to a second slot termination, the second slot comprising a variable axial length and disposed approximately 180 degrees from the first slot and the second slot termination disposed a predetermined distance from the axial distal end of the retainer (see marked up Figure below).
Re claim 35, further comprising: a notch (72,92,112) opposite the first slot of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, the notch comprising a variable axial length.
Re claim 41, further comprising: a gap profile defined by a first radial end surface of the first slot and a second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface of the first slot (see Fig. 3,5,6, of Beach et al.)
Re claim 42, at least one of a first radial end surface of the first slot and the second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 3,5,6, of Beach et al.).
Re claim 43, the gap profile of the first slot being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 3,5,6 of Beach et al.).
Re claim 44, the retainer further comprising: a gap profile defined by a first radial end surface of the first slot and a second radial end surface of the first slot opposite the first radial end surface of the first slot (see Fig. 3,5,6 of Beach et al.).
Re claim 45, at least one of the first radial end surface and the second radial end surface of the first slot of the retainer being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 3,5,6 of Beach et al.).
Re claim 46, the gap profile of the first slot being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 3,5,6 of Beach et al.).
Re claim 48, further comprising: a second slot (see marked up Figure below) axially extending from the angular notch through the sidewall of the retainer to a second slot termination, the second slot comprising a variable axial length and the second slot termination disposed a predetermined distance from the axial distal end of the retainer.
Re claim 49, further comprising: a second slot (see marked up Figure below) disposed approximately 180 degrees from the first slot of the retainer, the second slot extending from the notch through the sidewall of the retainer, the second slot comprising a variable axial length; and a second slot termination of the second slot disposed a predetermined distance from the axial distal end of the retainer along an axial length of the retainer.
Re claim 52, further comprising: a second slot (see marked up Figure below) axially extending from the angular notch through the sidewall of the retainer to a second slot termination, the second slot comprising a variable axial length and the second slot termination disposed a predetermined distance from the axial distal end of the retainer.
Re claim 55, further comprising: a second slot (see marked up Figure below) disposed approximately 180 degrees from the first slot of the retainer, the second slot extending from the notch through the sidewall of the retainer, the second slot comprising a variable axial length; and a second slot termination of the second slot disposed a predetermined distance from the axial distal end of the retainer along an axial length of the retainer.
PNG
media_image6.png
456
608
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
242
502
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German document ‘389 in view of Ojanen ‘888 as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Sterwerf, Jr. (US 4632463).
German document ‘389 (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, German document ‘389 (as modified above) is silent about the spacer being at least one nearly butted annular hollow spacer including a first radial end surface and a second radial end surface opposite the first radial end surface, the first radial end surface spaced from the second radial end surface.
Sterwerf teaches the spacer being at least one nearly butted annular hollow spacer (48) including a first radial end surface and a second radial end surface opposite the first radial end surface, the first radial end surface spaced from the second 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 further modify German document ‘389 (as modified above) to have the spacer being at least one nearly butted annular hollow spacer including a first radial end surface and a second radial end surface opposite the first radial end surface, the first radial end surface spaced from the second radial end surface as taught by Sterwerf, Jr.since such a modification allows for easy installation and removal of the spacers (washer).
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German document ‘389 in view of German document ‘587 as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Sterwerf, Jr. (US 4632463).
German document ‘389 (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, German document ‘389 (as modified above) is silent about the spacer being at least one nearly butted annular hollow spacer including a first radial end surface and a second radial end surface opposite the first radial end surface, the first radial end surface spaced from the second radial end surface.
Sterwerf Jr. teaches the spacer being at least one nearly butted annular hollow spacer (48) including a first radial end surface and a second radial end surface opposite the first radial end surface, the first radial end surface spaced from the second 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 further modify German document ‘389 (as modified above) to have the spacer being at least one nearly butted annular hollow spacer including a first radial end surface and a second radial end surface opposite the first radial end surface, the first radial end surface spaced from the second radial end surface as taught by Sterwerf, Jr .since such a modification allows for easy installation and removal of the spacers (washer).
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German document (DE 10040562) in view of Ojanen ‘888 as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Sterwerf Jr. ‘463.
German document ‘562 (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, German document ‘562 (as modified above) is silent about the spacer being at least one nearly butted annular hollow spacer including a first radial end surface and a second radial end surface opposite the first radial end surface, the first radial end surface spaced from the second radial end surface.
Sterwerf teaches the spacer being at least one nearly butted annular hollow spacer (48) including a first radial end surface and a second radial end surface opposite the first radial end surface, the first radial end surface spaced from the second 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 further modify German document ‘562 (as modified above) to have the spacer being at least one nearly butted annular hollow spacer including a first radial end surface and a second radial end surface opposite the first radial end surface, the first radial end surface spaced from the second radial end surface as taught by Sterwerf, Jr.since such a modification allows for easy installation and removal of the spacers (washer).
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German document (DE 10040562) in view of German document ‘587 as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Sterwerf Jr. ‘463.
German document ‘562 (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, German document ‘562 (as modified above) is silent about the spacer being at least one nearly butted annular hollow spacer including a first radial end surface and a second radial end surface opposite the first radial end surface, the first radial end surface spaced from the second radial end surface.
Sterwerf teaches the spacer being at least one nearly butted annular hollow spacer (48) including a first radial end surface and a second radial end surface opposite the first radial end surface, the first radial end surface spaced from the second 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 further modify German document ‘562 (as modified above) to have the spacer being at least one nearly butted annular hollow spacer including a first radial end surface and a second radial end surface opposite the first radial end surface, the first radial end surface spaced from the second radial end surface as taught by Sterwerf, Jr.since such a modification allows for easy installation and removal of the spacers (washer).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,19 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. Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach “at least two tabs disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot”; however, it should be noted that such claimed limitation is taught by new references Ojanen ‘888 and German document ‘587.
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
4/12/2026
Prosecution Insights