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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/2/26 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because The IDS did not include the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) in addition to the statement as specifiedin 37 CFR 1.97(e). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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 2 and 12 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.
With respect to claim 2, it is unclear if the non-cylindrical cross section is referring to the non-cylindrical cross section of the bore or of the static conical cutting bit. Appropriate correction is required.
With respect to claim 12, the claim preamble sets forth a “dual indexable sleeve” and the claim further recites details regarding “the cutting tool”. It is unclear how the cutting tool defines the sleeve. Thus it is unclear whether the Applicant is attempting to claim the cutting tool with the sleeve so that the preamble should be amended to assembly or system or whether the details of the cutting tool are setting forth the intended use of the sleeve. For purposes of examination, the claim has been treated like a system claim and is rejected accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritchey (US 20090261646) in view of Fader (US 20110241407).
With respect to claims 1 and 12, Ritchey disclose an indexable earth cutting tool assembly for mounting within a bore of a support block, comprising: a cutting tool (12, 14) comprising one of (it is noted that the claim requires only one type of bit, but for compact prosecution both bits have been mapped to) a rotatable conical cutting bit (14) and a static conical cutting bit (12); the support block having a bore (44) extending from a top surface to a bottom surface for receiving the shank of the cutting tool, wherein the bore of the support block has a first portion with a cylindrical cross section (46) and extending a predetermined length from the top surface (see figures 8 and 9), and wherein the bore has a second portion with a non-cylindrical cross section (48) and extending from the first portion to the bottom surface (see figures 8 and 9), and wherein the support block is adapted to receive one of the rotatable conical cutting bit and the static conical cutting bit (see figures 8 and 9), wherein the rotatable conical cutting bit has a shank with a cylindrical cross section (40) received only within the first portion of the bore of the support bore (wherein the cylindrical cross section is received only in the first section – see figure 11) and is freely rotatable within the first portion of the bore (see paragraph 46), and wherein the static conical cutting bit has a shank with a first portion having a cylindrical cross section (20) received within the first portion of the bore of the dual indexable sleeve and a second portion (22) with a non-cylindrical cross section received within the second portion of the bore of the dual indexable sleeve (see figure 10). Ritchey does not disclose a dual indexable sleeve for mounting within the bore of the support block. Rader et al. disclose that a hollow sleeve is optional and without a sleeve the bit is inserted directly into the bore of the holder block. Thus, it would have been obvious to try, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the dual indexable sleeve of Rader et al. in the support block of Ritchey because Rader et al. teaches the sleeve as one of a finite number of predictable alternatives, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the sleeve to provide known benefits such as replaceability when worn. As modified, the support bore of Richey et al. would be the bore of the dual indexable sleeve and thus the combination teaches the claimed limitations. Further regarding claim 12, the sleeve as combined in the support block meets the claimed limitations, wherein Fader teaches the sleeve has a flange portion 54/56.
With respect to claim 2, as best understood, Ritchy disclose wherein the non-cylindrical cross section is polygonal having a plurality of flat indexing surfaces (48a on the bore and 22a on the bit).
With respect to claim 3, Ritchy disclose wherein the rotatable conical cutting bit includes a retainer clip (see paragraph 46, retaining clip – not shown) disposed about the shank (45) of the rotatable conical cutting bit (see paragraph 46), the retainer clip includes at least one tab received within a circumferential groove (see groove 45 formed below 42 and the part of the clip that contacts the groove is considered a tab) formed in the shank of the rotatable conical cutting bit for preventing unwanted axial movement of the rotatable conical cutting bit, while allowing the rotatable conical cutting bit to freely rotate when received only within the first portion of the bore of the dual indexable sleeve (see paragraph 46 wherein engagement with surface 49 prevents axial movement).
With respect to claim 7, Ritchey et al. as modified disclose wherein the first portion of the bore of the dual indexable sleeve has a maximum diameter (see figures 4 and 8 of Ritchy wherein the sleeve conforms to the shape of the bore, and the upper portion has a maximum inner diameter), and the second portion of the bore of the dual indexable sleeve has a maximum width such that the maximum width of the second portion is less than or equal to the maximum diameter of the first portion of the bore of the dual indexable sleeve (see figures 4 and 8, lower portion of bore, wherein the width is less than the maximum diameter).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritchey in view of Rader in further view of GB1600761.
With respect to claim 8, Ritchey in view of Rader disclose a retaining pin or clip (see paragraph 50) but does not disclose a button retainer. GB1600761 disclose a button retainer a button retainer that elastically deforms and provides a force in a radial direction against the dual indexable sleeve to prevent unwanted axial movement (see page 2 lines 30-44). As both Ritchey and GB 1600761 disclose retainers to prevent axial movement, tt would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the retaining ring of the static conical cutting bit of Ritchey with the retainer button as taught by GB1600761 for the predictable result of retaining the shank in an axial direction when the second portion of the shank of the static conical cutting bit is received in the second portion of the bore of the dual indexable sleeve.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see filed 3/9/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 7, 8, and 12 under 103 over Fader in view of Ritchey have been fully considered and in view of these arguments a new rejection is presented above over Ritchey in view of Fader. The Examiner does not agree the previous rejection was in error and the arguments were not persuasive; however, the new rejection simplifies the issues by purposing a modification of an additional sleeve rather than a modification of the bore. The arguments are directed towards the combination of Fader in view of Ritchey and the new ground of rejection does not rely on the previous combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record. In view of the new rejection, this action is hereby made non-final.
It is noted that Ritchey and Fader are analogous art in that both teach cutters used in mining.
In addition, the Applicant argues that “the claimed invention directly addresses these limitations by teaching configuration that enables selective engagement of the sleeve, either only the cylindrical portion or both the cylindrical section and non-cylindrical portions, depending on the type of cutting tool employed.” It is noted that this argument is more narrow than the claim limitation itself. The claim recites that the cylindrical portion of a rotatable bit is received only with the first portion. The limitation allows for other portions of the rotatable bit to be received in the other portions of the bore. Also, as noted above, the claim only requires “one of a rotatable conical cutting bit and a static conical bit”. Thus, the claim does not recite both a rotatable conical bit and a static bit (also see note on claim 12 wherein it is unclear if any bit is required at all).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE A COY whose telephone number is (571)272-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-3:30pm.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/Nicole Coy/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights