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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 239 (fig. 8), 249 (fig. 8), 317 (fig. 8).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At the end of ¶ 47 of the submitted specification, “grind knife 330” should be “grind knife 230.”
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites, first, “the second central aperture,” which lacks antecedent basis at that point in the claim, except it is provided later in the last section of the claim. The claim should be amended such that the antecedent basis is provided first.
Claim 13, line 3, should be amended to recite “an external threading.”
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites “the first internal threads, the first external threads, the second internal threads, and the second external threads.” None of these limitations have antecedent basis because such is provided in claim 17, but claim 18 depends from claim 14.
Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR 2013-0016748 A, cited by the Office).
Claim 1: Kim discloses an auger stud (drive shaft 21 qualifies as a “stud”; “auger” is understood as intended use) extending along a longitudinal rotational axis that defines a proximal direction and a distal direction opposite the proximal direction (generally appreciable from fig. 3), the auger stud comprising:
a body portion (from the internal end of 21a to where 21d meets 21e in fig. 3);
a stem extending (21a) distally from the body portion;
a first grind plate mounting section (21e; “grind plate mounting” understood as intended use) positioned proximally of the body portion, the first grind plate mounting section having a first circular cross-sectional geometry (appreciable from 21e in fig. 3);
a second grind plate mounting section (the uppermost portion of 21 shown in fig. 3; “grind plate mounting” understood as intended use) positioned proximally of the first grind plate mounting section, the second grind plate mounting section having a second circular cross-sectional geometry (appreciable from fig. 3); and
a grind knife mounting section (21f) positioned between the first grind plate mounting section and the second grind plate mounting section, the grind knife mounting section having a first non-circular cross-sectional geometry (“octagonal shaft”).
Claim 2: Kim discloses that the first non-circular cross-sectional geometry comprises a first flat (the “octagonal shaft” 21f has a first flat).
Claim 4: Kim discloses that the first non-circular cross-sectional geometry further comprises a second flat (the “octagonal shaft” 21f has a second flat).
Claim 5: Kim discloses that the first flat and the second flat are diametrically opposite one another (the “octagonal shaft” has four pairs of opposite flats).
Claim 9: Kim discloses that the second grind plate mounting section has a second grind plate mounting section diameter (see fig. 3); and
wherein the second grind plate mounting section diameter is less than a diameter of the grind knife mounting section such that a proximal-facing shoulder is formed by a proximal end of the grind knife mounting section (clearly shown in fig. 3).
Claims 1, 7, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Du (CN 110721783 A, cited by the Office).
Claim 1: Du discloses an auger stud (rotating shaft 3 qualifies as a “stud”; “auger” is understood as intended use) extending along a longitudinal rotational axis that defines a proximal direction and a distal direction opposite the proximal direction (appreciable from fig. 6), the auger stud comprising:
a body portion (in fig. 6, the portion of 3 with the largest diameter);
a stem extending distally from the body portion (in fig. 6, the portion lower than the largest-diameter portion;
a first grind plate mounting section (the portion above the largest-diameter portion of 3 in fig. 6; “grind plate mounting” understood as intended use) positioned proximally of the body portion, the first grind plate mounting section having a first circular cross-sectional geometry (appreciable from figs. 6 and 9);
a second grind plate mounting section (the upper-most portion of 3 in fig. 6) positioned proximally of the first grind plate mounting section, the second grind plate mounting section having a second circular cross-sectional geometry (appreciable from figs. 6 and 9); and
a grind knife mounting section (the portion of 3 with the flat in fig. 6) positioned between the first grind plate mounting section and the second grind plate mounting section, the grind knife mounting section having a first non-circular cross-sectional geometry (appreciable from figs. 6 and 9).
Claim 7: Du discloses that the body portion has a body portion diameter (see the largest-diameter portion of 3 in fig. 6);
wherein the stem has a stem diameter (see the portion immediately below the largest-diameter portion of 3 in fig. 6); and
wherein the stem diameter is less than the body portion diameter such that a distal-facing shoulder is formed by a distal end of the body portion (appreciable from 3 in fig. 6).
Claim 8: Du discloses that the body portion has a body portion diameter (appreciable from figs. 3 and 6);
wherein the first grind plate mounting section has a first grind plate mounting section diameter (ibid.); and
wherein the first grind plate mounting section diameter is less than the body portion diameter such that a proximal-facing shoulder is formed by a proximal end of the body portion (ibid.).
Claim 11: Du discloses that the stem is threaded (“the rotating shaft 3 is arranged at the end of the outer screw thread and a linkage 17 is set with inner screw thread, way connected through screw thread to realize the rotation shaft 3 fixed with the linkage 17”).
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carl (US Pat. 3,327,994).
Claim 1: Carl discloses an auger stud (the elongated piece shown in fig. 2 qualifies as a stud; “auger” is understood as intended use) extending along a longitudinal rotational axis that defines a proximal direction and a distal direction opposite the proximal direction (appreciable from fig. 2), the auger stud comprising:
a body portion (23);
a stem (24, 21) extending distally from the body portion;
a first grind plate mounting section (the portion labeled as “17” in fig. 2 qualifies as such a section; “grind plate mounting” is understood as intended use) positioned proximally of the body portion, the first grind plate mounting section having a first circular cross-sectional geometry (see fig. 2);
a second grind plate mounting section (the circular cross-sectional section immediately leftward of the threads in fig. 2) positioned proximally of the first grind plate mounting section, the second grind plate mounting section having a second circular cross-sectional geometry (ibid.); and
a grind knife mounting section (the threaded section shown in fig. 2 qualifies as such a section; “grind knife mounting” is understood as intended use) positioned between the first grind plate mounting section and the second grind plate mounting section (appreciable from fig. 2), the grind knife mounting section having a first non-circular cross-sectional geometry (the threads constitute a non-circular cross-sectional geometry).
Claim 10: Carl discloses a proximal end portion positioned proximally of the second grind plate mounting section (see the portion immediately to the left of the smaller circular cross-sectional area adjacent to the threaded section), wherein the proximal end portion comprises an annular channel (visible at that location in fig. 2).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Kim does not exactly explicitly disclose that the first flat is defined adjacent a proximal-facing shoulder defined by a proximal end of the first grind plate mounting section.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand 21e and 21f in fig. 3 to be showing that 21f has about the same maximum diameter as 21e, with its flat octagonal sections having smaller trimmed-away diameters, such that the flats of the octagonal shaft were adjacent a shoulder defined by the adjacent part of 21e, particularly since a larger diameter on 21f than 21e would prevent 21e from acting as a contact sealing portion on what is received on the body and thus would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kutter- und Gerätebau Wetter GmbH (DE 202021103953 U1, “Kutter”).
Kim does not disclose that the first flat and the second flat are connected by a pair of arcuate surfaces.
However, an arrangement of two flats connected by a pair of arcuate surfaces is generally known in the art, as for example shown in Kutter (see 23 and 24 in fig. 6).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be generally appraised of how different cross-sections of shafts can produce different results, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. The advantage of Kim’s octagonal shaft is it makes it easy for a user to insert it into its target since it at most requires a 1/8 turn to find the correct position. The disadvantage of Kim’s octagonal shaft is it makes slippage more likely, e.g. if the shaft wears down or warps over time, the polygonal coupling may not hold to its corresponding surface. The advantages and disadvantages of the first and second flats connected by a pair of arcuate surfaces from Kutter is essentially opposite to that of Kim.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the octagonal shaft of Kim with the two flats and two arcuate surfaces taught by Kutter to make slippage less likely.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections set forth in this Office action.
Claims 14–17 and 19–21 are allowed.
Claim 18 would inherit allowability if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Each “portion” in the claim is understood as a section of the stud defined by a structural feature, and is not understood so broadly as to possibly mean any arbitrary continuous section of material, such that one portion with the same type of construction would not be understood as divisible into two different same-type portions to read on the claim.
The claimed “stem” is understood to be a narrow portion, and in the case of the claim, narrower than the body portion from which it extends.
Kim and Du, cited above, disclose the auger stud as claimed in claim 1, but what they disclose is not intended to be used as an auger stud for a grind knife (required by claim 12 and independent claim 14), nor would one of ordinary skill in the art identify them as candidate auger studs regardless of their intended function.
Back et al. (US Pub. 2023/0133707), Back et al. (US Pub. 2023/0321667), turbocut Jopp GmbH (DE 202021100143 U1, cited by the Office), turbocut Jopp GmbH (DE 202021100142 U1, cited by the Office), Back (US Pub. 2023/0381789), Xie (US Pat. 6,168,101), and Fernandes Martines (BR 202018016612 U2, cited by the Office) are all relevant prior art that disclose auger studs similar to what is claimed and disclosed, but each reference has one or more deficiencies compared to the allowable or potentially-allowable claims that cannot be remedied because of the limited teachings of sufficiently analogous prior art and/or since it would require impermissible hindsight.
Funakubo (US Pat. 4,018,390) and Wang et al. (CN 112021380 A, cited by the Office) are also relevant prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights