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 49-58,60-62,64-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is confusing because it is not clear what is meant by “washer body portion (24) is adapted to be at least an outer diameter of a forward end (146) of a bit holder (140) in which the bit is retained”. See para 0064. It appears to mean the diameter of the washer body portion (24) is generally the same as the diameter of a nose portion (146) of a bit holder (140).
Claim 52 is confusing because the “annular second transition radius” is not “of the tapered portion”. It appears the annular second transition radius extends from the shoulder.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 49-51,53,54, 64,65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Kenno et al. (US 20220290562).
Kenno et al. discloses a bit (14) comprising:
a unitary body portion (28) comprising an arcuate forward body portion (para 0029) and a washer portion body portion (38, Fig. 1) adjacent the arcuate forward body portion, the washer body portion integrally formed as part of the unitary body portion and adapted to include including an outer diameter (see Fig. 1) that is adapted to be at least an outer diameter of a forward end of a bit holder (12) in which the bit is retained;
a generally cylindrical shank (30) depending from a bottom of the body portion (28); and
an annular first transition radius (see marked up Figure below) extending radially inwardly and from a rear annular flange (where 39 is pointing in Figure 2) of the washer body portion adjacent the generally cylindrical shank.
Re claim 50, further comprising: a tapered portion (see marked up Figure below) adjacent the rear annular flange of the washer body portion, the tapered portion adapted to contact a countersink at the forward end of a bore of the bit holder (12) to
radially align the bit with the bore of the bit holder.
Re claim 51, the tapered portion comprising a first angle that is adapted to be complementary to an angle of the countersink of the bore of the bit holder (see marked up Figure below).
Re claim 53, further comprising: the rear annular flange at the bottom of the unitary body portion adapted to form a close coupling with an annular surface at the forward end of the bit holder (see marked up Figure below).
Re claim 64, further comprising: a tapered portion extending from the rear annular flange to an outer surface of the washer body portion (see marked up Figure below).
Re claim 54, further comprising: a generally cylindrical hollow retainer (79,80)disposed circumferentially about the generally cylindrical shank.
Re claim 65, a distal end of the retainer (79,80) adapted to grip a distal portion of the generally cylindrical shank (see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
618
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 49-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by WO document (WO 00/34626).
WO document ‘626 discloses a bit (see Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a unitary body portion comprising an arcuate forward body portion and a washer
body portion (see marked up Figure below) adjacent the arcuate forward body portion, the washer body portion integrally formed as part of the unitary body portion and adapted to include including an outer diameter that is adapted to be at least an outer diameter of a forward end of a bit holder (16, Fig. 1) in which the bit is retained;
a generally cylindrical shank (20) depending from a bottom of the body portion; and
an annular first transition radius (R21 of Fig. 3) extending radially inwardly and axially upwardly from a rear annular flange (29 in Fig. 3) of the washer body portion adjacent the generally cylindrical shank.
Re claim 50, further comprising:
a tapered portion (where 28.1 is pointing Fig. 3) adjacent the rear annular flange of the washer body portion, the tapered portion adapted to contact a countersink (26.1) at the forward end of a bore of the bit holder (16) to radially align the bit with the bore of the bit holder.
Re claim 51, the tapered portion comprising a first angle that is adapted to be complementary to an angle of the countersink of the bore of the bit
holder (Fig 3, where member 28.1 is positioned within member 26.1).
Re claim 52, further comprising: the annular first transition radius (R21) of the washer portion extending from the rear annular flange (29) to the tapered portion (28.1); and
an annular second transition radius (R21) extending axially distally from a shoulder (see marked up Figure below) at a distal end of the tapered portion to a forward end of the generally cylindrical shank.
Re claim 53, further comprising: the rear annular flange at the bottom of the unitary body portion adapted to form a close coupling with an annular surface at the forward end of the bit holder (see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
806
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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) 55,62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenno ‘562 in view of Bower, Jr. (US 4327947).
Kenno discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Kenno is silent about
the retainer further comprising: a first slot extending through a sidewall of the retainer from an axial forward end of the retainer to an axial distal end of the retainer;
a 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;
a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to the first radial end surface of
the first slot; and a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to the second radial end surface of the first slot, the first angled portion and the second angled portion adapted to form a dual corner break of the retainer adjacent the axial distal end of the retainer.
Bower, Jr. teaches a retainer further comprising: a first slot extending through a sidewall of the retainer from an axial forward end of the retainer to an axial distal end of the retainer;
a 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;
a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to the first radial end surface of
the first slot; and
a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to the second radial end surface of the first slot, the first angled portion and the second angled portion adapted to form a dual corner break of the retainer adjacent the axial distal end of the retainer (see Fig. 2).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kenno to have the retainer
further comprising: a first slot extending through a sidewall of the retainer from an axial forward end of the retainer to an axial distal end of the retainer;
a 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;
a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to the first radial end surface of
the first slot; and
a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to the second radial end surface of the first slot, the first angled portion and the second angled portion adapted to form a dual corner break of the retainer adjacent the axial distal end of the retainer as taught by Bower, Jr. since such a modification facilitates the installation of the retainer around the shank of the bit.
Re claim 62, at least one of the first radial end surface of the first slot, the second radial end surface of the first slot, and the gap profile being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Fig. 2 of Bower Jr.).
Claim(s) 49-51,53,54,64,65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP document (EP 0295232) in view of Kenno ‘562.
EP document ‘232 discloses a bit comprising:
a unitary body portion (13) comprising an arcuate forward body portion and a washer portion (18) body portion adjacent the arcuate forward body portion, the washer body portion integrally formed as part of the unitary body portion and adapted to include including an outer diameter that is adapted to be at least an outer diameter of a forward end of a bit holder (16) in which the bit is retained;
a generally cylindrical shank (14) depending from a bottom of the body portion; and
an annular groove (22) extending radially inwardly from a rear annular flange of the washer body portion adjacent the generally cylindrical shank. EP ‘232 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, EP ‘232 is silent about the “groove” being
an annular first transition radius. Kenno teaches a “groove” near where member 39
is pointing in Figs 2,4 being an annular first transition radius. 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 ‘232 to have the groove form as an annular first transition radius as taught by Kenno since such a modification distributes forces more evenly versus at a severe point.
Re claim 50, further comprising: a tapered portion (see Figs. 4,6,8,10) adjacent the rear annular flange of the washer body portion, the tapered portion adapted to contact a countersink at the forward end of a bore of the bit holder to radially align the bit with the bore of the bit holder.
Re claim 51, the tapered portion comprising a first angle that is adapted to be complementary to an angle of the countersink of the bore of the bit holder (see Figs. 4,6,8,10).
Re claim 53, further comprising: the rear annular flange at the bottom of the unitary body portion adapted to form a close coupling with an annular surface at the forward end of the bit holder (see Figs. 4,6,8,10).
Re claim 64, EP document ‘232 is silent about further including a tapered portion extending from the rear annular flange to an outer surface of the washer body portion. Kenno teaches a tapered portion extending from the rear annular flange to an outer surface of the washer body portion (see marked up Figure above).
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 ‘232 to have
a tapered portion extending from the rear annular flange to an outer surface of the washer body portion as taught by Kenno since such a modification reduces manufacturing cost by having a tapered edge versus a rounded edge.
Re claim 54, further comprising: a generally cylindrical hollow retainer (10 of EP document ) disposed circumferentially about the generally cylindrical shank.
Re claim 65, a distal end of the retainer adapted to grip a distal portion of the generally cylindrical shank (see Figs. 2,4,6,8,10 of EP document ‘232).
Claim(s) 55,58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP document ‘232 in view of Kenno ‘562 as applied to claim 54 above, and further in view of Russian document (RU 2198292).
EP document ‘232 (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, EP document ‘232 (as modified above) is silent about including a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to the first radial end surface of
the first slot; and a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to the second radial end surface of the first slot, the first angled portion and the second angled portion adapted to form a dual corner break of the retainer adjacent the axial distal end of the retainer.
Russian document ‘292 teaches a first slot extending through a sidewall of the retainer from an axial forward end of the retainer to an axial distal end of the retainer; a 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; a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to the first radial end surface of the first slot; and a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to the second radial end surface of the first slot, the first angled portion and the second angled portion adapted to form a dual corner break of the retainer adjacent the axial distal end of the retainer (see Fig. 6).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify EP document ‘232 (as modified above) to have a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to the first radial end surface of the first slot; and a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to the second radial end surface of the first slot, the first angled portion and the second angled portion adapted to form a dual corner break of the retainer adjacent the axial distal end of the retainer as taught by Russian document ‘292 since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit into the block/holder.
Re claim 58, further comprising:at least one tab (12b, Figs. 5A-6 of EP document ‘232) disposed extending radially inwardly from on the sidewall of the retainer forming a tab aperture on the sidewall of the retainer, the at least one tab extending axially and
radially inwardly, the at least one tab adapted to engage a flange on the generally cylindrical shank of the bit to prevent the retainer from being removed from the generally cylindrical shank.
Claim(s) 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP document ‘232 in view of Kenno ‘562 and Russian document ‘292 as applied to claim 55 above, and further in view of Ojanen (US 20020153175)
EP document ‘232 (as twice modified) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, EP document ‘232 (as twice modified) lack a chamfer adjacent the axial distal end of the retainer, the chamfer extending to an outer surface of the retainer
Ojanen 175 teaches a chamfer (51, para 0040) adjacent the axial distal end of the retainer, the chamfer extending to an outer surface of the retainer.
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 ‘232 (as twice modified above) to include a chamfer adjacent the axial distal end of the retainer, the chamfer extending to an outer surface of the retainer as taught by Ojanen since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit into the block/holder.
Claim(s) 57,60-62,66,67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP document ‘232 in view of Kenno ‘562 and Russian document ‘292 as applied to claim 55 above, and further in view of Beach et al. (US 4850649).
EP document ‘232 (as twice modified) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, EP document ‘232 (as twice modified) lacks a notch opposite the axial forward end of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer.
Beach et al. ‘649 teaches a notch (112, Fig. 6) opposite the axial forward end of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer.
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 ‘232 (as twice modified above) to include a notch opposite the axial forward end of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer as taught by Beach et al. since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit into the block/holder.
Re claim 60, wherein the notch is one of arcuate and angular (112, see Fig. 6 of Beach et al.).
Re claim 61, further comprising: an angular notch (112, Fig. 6 of Beach et al.) opposite the axial forward end of the retainer, the angular notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer;
a first angled side of the angular notch extending from a first location at the axial distal end of the retainer to a vertex of the angular notch 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.
Re claim 62, at least one of the first radial end surface of the first slot, the second radial end surface of the first slot, and the gap profile being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (see Figs. 1b,5B of EP document ‘232; Fig. 6 of Russian document ‘292; Fig. 6 of Beach et al.’649).
Re claim 66, further comprising: an internal diameter of the notch, the distal end of the retainer adapted to reduce the internal diameter of the notch as the bit is inserted into a bore of the bit holder, thereby providing negative, minimal, and/or zero clearance at the distal portion of the generally cylindrical shank (see Figs. 2,4,6,7 of Beach et al.’649).
Re claim 67, further comprising: an internal diameter of the notch, the distal end of the retainer adapted to reduce the internal diameter of the notch as the bit is inserted into a bore of the bit holder, thereby reducing radial movement, improving bit rotation, and reducing axial forward movement of the bit (see Figs. 2,4,6,7 of Beach et al. ‘649).
Claim(s) 49-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canadian document ‘838 in view of Kenno (US 20220288704)
Canadian document ‘838 discloses a bit (see Figs. 5-13) comprising:
a unitary body portion comprising an arcuate forward body portion (Figs. 5-13, see marked up Figure below) and a washer portion body portion (see marked up Figure below) adjacent the arcuate forward body portion, the washer body portion integrally formed as part of the unitary body portion and include an outer diameter, a generally cylindrical shank (20) depending from a bottom of the unitary body portion; and an annular first transition radius (see marked up Figure below) extending radially inwardly from a rear annular flange of the washer body portion adjacent the shank. Canadian document ‘838 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Canadian document ‘838 is silent about the diameter of the washer body portion (where 32 is pointing) is adapted to be at least an outer diameter of a forward end of a bit holder (the combination of member 50 and 16 depicted in Figures 7,9,11,13) in which the bit is retained. In other words, Canadian document is silent about the diameter of the washer body portion (32) is generally the same as the diameter of a nose portion of a bit holder (the combination of member 50 and 16).
See para 0064 of instant application wherein it appears the above claimed language means the diameter of the washer body portion (24) is generally the same as the diameter of a nose portion (146) of a bit holder (140).
Kenno ‘704 teaches about the diameter of the washer body portion (see marked up Figure below) is adapted to be at least an outer diameter of a forward end of a bit holder (the combination of member 100 and 12 depicted in Fig. 5) in which the bit is retained. In other words, Kenno teaches the diameter of the washer body portion (see marked up Figure below) is generally the same as the diameter of a nose portion of a bit holder (the combination of member 100 and 12 of 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 Canadian document ‘838 to
have the diameter of the washer body portion is adapted to be at least an outer diameter of a forward end of a bit holder (the diameter of the washer body portion is generally the same as the diameter of the nose of the bit holder) as taught by Kenno ‘704 since such a modification enables the cut material to flow more effectively without resistance.
PNG
media_image3.png
476
546
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
504
832
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
734
468
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Re claim 50, further comprising: a tapered portion (near where member 52 is pointing Fig. 8 of Canadian document) adjacent the rear annular flange of the washer body portion, the tapered portion adapted to contact a countersink (52, Fig. 8 of Canadian document ‘838) at the forward end of a bore of the bit holder (combination of 50 and 16 of Fig. 7 of Canadian document) to radially align the bit with the bore of the bit holder (see Fig. 8 of Canadian document ‘838).
Re claim 51, the tapered portion comprising a first angle that is adapted to be complementary to an angle of the countersink of the bore of the bit holder (see where 52 is pointing in Fig. 8 of Canadian document ‘838).
Re claim 52, further comprising: the annular first transition radius of the washer portion extending from the rear annular flange to the tapered portion; and an annular second transition radius of the tapered portion extending axially distally from a shoulder at a distal end of the tapered portion to a forward end of the shank (see marked up Figure above).
Re claim 53, further comprising: the rear annular flange at the bottom of the unitary body portion adapted to form a close coupling with an annular surface at a forward end of a bit holder (see Figs.7,8 of Canadian document ‘838).
Re claim 54, further comprising: a generally cylindrical hollow retainer (46 of Canadian document ‘838) disposed circumferentially about the shank.
Claim(s) 55,62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canadian document ‘838 in view of Kenno ‘704 as applied to claim 54 above, and further in view of Levankovsky (US 20050082899).
Canadian document ‘838 (as modified above) discloses the retainer further comprising: a first slot (48, Fig. 9 of Canadian document ‘838) extending through a sidewall of the retainer from an axial forward end of the retainer to an axial distal end of the retainer;
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 (48, Fig. 9 of Canadian document ‘838);
Canadian document ‘838 (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Canadian document ‘838 (as modified above) is silent about a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to the first radial end surface of the first slot; and a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to the second radial end surface of the first slot, the first angled portion and the second angled portion adapted to form a dual corner break of the retainer adjacent the axial distal end of the retainer. Levankovsky ‘899 teaches a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to the first radial end surface of the first slot; and a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to the second radial end surface of the first slot, the first angled portion and the second angled portion adapted to form a dual corner break of the retainer adjacent the axial distal end of the retainer (see Fig. 6). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Canadian document ‘838 (as modified above) to include a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to the first radial end surface of the first slot; and a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to the second radial end surface of the first slot, the first angled portion and the second angled portion adapted to form a dual corner break of the retainer adjacent the axial distal end of the retainer as taught by Levankovsky ‘899 since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit into the holder.
Re claim 62, at least one of the first radial end surface of the first slot (48, Fig. 9 of Canadian document ‘838 or Fig. 6 of Levankovsky ‘899), the second radial end surface of the first slot, and the gap profile formed by the first radial end surface and the second radial end surface of the slot being at least one of linear, parallel, serpentine, arcuate, angular, and zig-zagged (48, Fig. 9 of Canadian document ‘838 or Fig. 6 of Levankovsky ‘899).
Claim(s) 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canadian document ‘838 in view of Kenno ‘704 and Levankovsky ‘899 as applied to claim 55 above, and further in view of German document (DE 10142438).
Canadian document ‘838 (as twice modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Canadian document ‘838 (as twice modified above) it silent about including a chamfer adjacent the axial distal end of the retainer, the chamfer extending to an outer surface of the retainer. German document ‘438 teaches a chamfer adjacent the axial distal end of the retainer, the chamfer extending to an outer surface of the retainer (where 33 is pointing in Figs. 1,2). 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 Canadian document ‘838 (as twice modified above) to include a chamfer adjacent the axial distal end of the retainer, the chamfer extending to an outer surface of the retainer as taught by German document ‘438 since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit into the bit holder.
Claim(s) 57,58,60-61,66,67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canadian document ‘838 in view of Kenno ‘704 and Levankovsky ‘899 as applied to claim 55 above, and further in view of Beach et al. (US 4850649).
Canadian document ‘838 (as twice modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Canadian document (as twice modified above) is silent about including a notch opposite the axial forward end of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer. Beach et al.’649 teaches a notch opposite the axial forward end of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer (see Figs. 3,5,6).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Canadian document ‘838 (as twice modified above) to include a notch opposite the axial forward end of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer as taught by Beach et al. ‘649 since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit into the bit holder.
Re claim 58, 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 Canadian document ‘838 (as twice modified above) to include at least one tab disposed on the sidewall of the retainer, the at least one tab extending axially and radially inwardly, the at least one tab adapted to engage a flange on the shank of the bit as taught by Beach et al. ‘649 (see Figs. 2 to 7) to prevent the retainer from being removed from the shank.
Re claim 60, wherein the notch is one of arcuate and angular (112, Fig. 6 of Beach et al ‘649.).
Re claim 61, further comprising: an angular notch (112, Fig. 6 of Beach et al.’649) opposite the axial forward end of the retainer, the angular notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer; a first angled side of the angular notch extending from a first location at the axial distal end of the retainer to a vertex of the angular notch 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 (112, Fig. 6 of Beach et al.).
Re claim 66, further comprising: an internal diameter of the notch (112,Fig. 6 of Beach et al.’649) the distal end of the retainer adapted to reduce the internal diameter of the notch as the bit is inserted into a bore of a bit holder, thereby providing negative, minimal, and/or zero clearance at the distal portion of the shank.
Re claim 67, further comprising: an internal diameter of the notch (112, Fig. 6 of Beach et al. ’649), the distal end of the retainer adapted to reduce the internal diameter of the notch as the bit is inserted into a bore of a bit holder, thereby reducing radial movement, improving bit rotation, and reducing axial forward movement of the bit.
Claim(s) 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canadian document ‘838 in view of Kenno ‘704 as applied to claim 53 above, and further in view of Ojanen (US 20160273356).
Canadian document ‘838 (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Canadian document ‘838 (as modified above) is silent about including a tapered portion extending from the rear annular flange to an outer surface of the washer body portion. Ojanen teaches a tapered portion (see Figs. 1,3) extending from the rear annular flange to an outer surface of the washer body portion. 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 Canadian document ‘838 (as modified above) to include a tapered portion extending from the rear annular flange to an outer surface of the washer body portion as taught by Ojanen since such a modification enables removal of the bit.
Claim(s) 65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canadian document ‘838 in view of Kenno ‘704 as applied to claim 54 above, and further in view of Beach et al. (US 4850649).
Canadian document ‘838 (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Canadian document ‘838 (as modified above) is silent that a distal end of the retainer adapted to grip a distal portion of the shank. Beach et al. ‘649 teaches a distal end of a retainer adapted to grip a distal portion of the shank (see Figs. 2-7). 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 Canadian document ‘838 (as modified above) to have distal end of the retainer adapted to grip a distal portion of the shank as taught by Beach et al. since such a modification facilitates insertion of the bit into the block holder.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Canadian document ‘838 (Sollami) teaches washer body portion (50) that is separate from the unitary body portion (where 18 is pointing) and not integrally formed. The examiner disagrees. The examiner explicitly pointed out that (where 32 is pointing is considered as the washer body portion) and (member 50 in combination with member 16 is construed as the holder). There is no claimed language that precludes such interpretation. Applicant argues that the “washer portion” (32) does not contact the front face of the block. It should be noted that such argument is far more limiting than the claimed subject matter.
With regards to the limitation “washer body portion (24) is adapted to be at least an outer diameter of a forward end (146) of a bit holder (140) in which the bit is retained”, See para 0064. Such claimed language appears to mean the diameter of the washer body portion (24) is generally the same as the diameter of a nose portion (146) of a bit holder (140). This feature is taught in view of Kenno ‘704.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7051. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-3, F 9-8 and 2nd Sat 11-7.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571 270 5281. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUNIL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SS
8/22/2026
Prosecution Insights