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
Figures 90-92 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16,18-19,21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1-5, 9-13,18,21 call for “variable axial length”; however, the originally filed disclosure fails to provide basis for such language; therefore such language constitutes new matter.
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 2-5,10-13, 21-24 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.
Claims 2,3,4,5,23 are indefinite, they are directed to embodiments depicted in at least one of Figs. 1,10,28; however, they depend from claim 1 which is directed to embodiment depicted in at least Fig. 37. The mixing and matching of embodiments render the claims indefinite.
Claims 10-13,24 are indefinite, they are directed to embodiments depicted in at least one of Figs. 1,10,28; however, they depend from claim 9 which is directed to embodiment depicted in at least Fig. 37. The mixing and matching of embodiments render the claims indefinite.
Claims 21, 22 are indefinite since they depend from a canceled claim.
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) 1,9,18, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frear ‘379 in view of Mercier (US 20020175555).
Frear ‘379 discloses a retainer (see Figs. 33-36, para 0120-0123) comprising:
a generally cylindrical hollow body portion (see Figs. 33-36) including an axial forward end and an axial distal end;
a first slot (see marked up Figures below) extending through a sidewall of the body portion from the axial forward end to the axial distal end;
a notch (see marked up Figure below) opposite the first slot of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, wherein the notch comprising a variable axial length (see para 0103),
at least one sloped surface at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer (see marked up Figures below), the at least one sloped surface comprising a sloped length and a sloped height, the slope length being greater than the sloped height (see marked up Figures below). Frear ‘379 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Frear is silent about the sloped surface at the axial distal end of the retainer being chamfer. Mercier teaches the axial distal end of the retainer being chamfer (73, see Fig. 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 modify Frear ‘379 to have the (sloped) surface at the axial distal end of the retainer be chamfer as taught by Mercier since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit/pick into the bore hole of the holder/block.. It should be noted that the modification yields a chamfer length being greater than the chamfer height (as depicted in marked up Figure below and/or in similar fashion as depicted in applicant’s Fig. 19C, 46).
Re claim 9, Frear ‘379 discloses a bit (see Figs. 33-36, para 0120-0123) 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 (see marked up Figures below) extending through a sidewall of the body portion from the axial forward end to the axial distal end;
a notch (see marked up Figure below) opposite the first slot of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, wherein the notch comprising a variable axial length (see para 0103), and at least one sloped surface (see marked up Figures below) at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer, the at least one sloped surface comprising a sloped length and a sloped height, the sloped length being greater than the sloped height (see marked up Figures below).
Frear ‘379 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Frear is silent about the sloped surface at the axial distal end of the retainer being chamfer. Mercier teaches the axial distal end of the retainer being chamfer (73, see Fig. 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 modify Frear ‘379 to have the (sloped) surface at the axial distal end of the retainer be chamfer as taught by Mercier since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit/pick into the bore hole of the holder/block.. It should be noted that the modification yields a chamfer length being greater than the chamfer height (as depicted in marked up Figure below and/or in similar fashion as depicted in applicants Fig. 19C, 46).
Note claim 21 is treated as being dependent from claim 9.
Re claim 18, 21, further comprising: a second slot (upper portion of notch, see marked up Figure below) extending from the notch through the sidewall of the retainer, the second slot comprising a variable axial length (see para 0103 of Fear); 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_image1.png
538
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
534
558
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
534
512
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1,9,18, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frear ‘379 in view of Ojanen (US 7380888).
Frear ‘379 discloses a retainer (see Figs. 33-36, para 0120-0123) comprising:
a generally cylindrical hollow body portion (see Figs. 33-36) including an axial forward end and an axial distal end;
a first slot (see marked up Figures above) extending through a sidewall of the body portion from the axial forward end to the axial distal end;
a notch (see marked up Figure above) opposite the first slot of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, wherein the notch comprising a variable axial length (see para 0103),
at least one sloped surface at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer (see marked up Figures above), the at least one sloped surface comprising a sloped length and a sloped height, the slope length being greater than the sloped height (see marked up Figures above). Frear ‘379 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Frear is silent about the sloped surface at the axial distal end of the retainer being chamfer. Ojanen teaches the axial distal end of the retainer being chamfer (col. 4 line 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 modify Frear ‘379 to have the (sloped) surface at the axial distal end of the retainer be chamfer as taught by Ojanen since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit/pick into the bore hole of the holder/block.. It should be noted that the modification yields a chamfer length being greater than the chamfer height (as depicted in marked up Figure above and/or in similar fashion as depicted in applicants Fig. 19C, 46).
Re claim 9, Frear ‘379 discloses a bit (see Figs. 33-36, para 0120-0123) 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 (see marked up Figures above) extending through a sidewall of the body portion from the axial forward end to the axial distal end;
a notch (see marked up Figure above) opposite the first slot of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, wherein the notch comprising a variable axial length (see para 0103),
and at least one sloped surface (see marked up Figures above) at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer, the at least one sloped surface comprising a sloped length and a sloped height, the sloped length being greater than the sloped height (see marked up Figures above).
Frear ‘379 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Frear is silent about the sloped surface at the axial distal end of the retainer being chamfer. Ojanen, teaches the axial distal end of the retainer being chamfer (col. 4 line 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 modify Frear ‘379 to have the (sloped) surface at the axial distal end of the retainer be chamfer as taught by Ojanen since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit/pick into the bore hole of the holder/block.. It should be noted that the modification yields a chamfer length being greater than the chamfer height (as depicted in marked up Figure above and/or in similar fashion as depicted in applicants Fig. 19C, 46).
Note claim 21 is treated as being dependent from claim 9.
Re claim 18, 21, further comprising: a second slot (upper portion of notch, see marked up Figure above) extending from the notch through the sidewall of the retainer, the second slot comprising a variable axial length (see para 0103 of Frear); 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.
Claim(s) 1,9,18, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frear ‘379 in view of German document (DE 10142438).
Frear ‘379 discloses a retainer (see Figs. 33-36, para 0120-0123) comprising:
a generally cylindrical hollow body portion (see Figs. 33-36) including an axial forward end and an axial distal end;
a first slot (see marked up Figures above) extending through a sidewall of the body portion from the axial forward end to the axial distal end;
a notch (see marked up Figure above) opposite the first slot of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, wherein the notch comprising a variable axial length (see para 0103),
at least one sloped surface at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer (see marked up Figures above), the at least one sloped surface comprising a sloped length and a sloped height, the slope length being greater than the sloped height (see marked up Figures above). Frear ‘379 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Frear is silent about the sloped surface at the axial distal end of the retainer being chamfer. German document ‘438 teaches the axial distal end of the retainer being chamfer (33, Fig. 2). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frear ‘379 to have the (sloped) surface at the axial distal end of the retainer be chamfer as taught by German document ‘438 since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit/pick into the bore hole of the holder/block.. It should be noted that the modification yields a chamfer length being greater than the chamfer height (as depicted in marked up Figure above and/or in a similar fashion as depicted in applicants Fig. 19C, 46).
Re claim 9, Frear ‘379 discloses a bit (see Figs. 33-36, para 0120-0123) 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 (see marked up Figures above) extending through a sidewall of the body portion from the axial forward end to the axial distal end;
a notch (see marked up Figure above) opposite the first slot of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer, wherein the notch comprising a variable axial length (see para 0103),
and at least one sloped surface (see marked up Figures above) at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer, the at least one sloped surface comprising a sloped length and a sloped height, the sloped length being greater than the sloped height (see marked up Figures above).
Frear ‘379 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Frear is silent about the sloped surface at the axial distal end of the retainer being chamfer. German document ‘438 teaches the axial distal end of the retainer being chamfer (33, Fig. 2). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frear ‘379 to have the (sloped) surface at the axial distal end of the retainer be chamfer as taught by German document ‘438 since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit/pick into the bore hole of the holder/block.. It should be noted that the modification yields a chamfer length being greater than the chamfer height (as depicted in marked up Figure above and/or in a similar fashion as depicted in applicants Fig. 19C, 46).
Note claim 21 is treated as being dependent from claim 9.
Re claim 18, 21, further comprising: a second slot (upper portion of notch, see marked up Figure above) extending from the notch through the sidewall of the retainer, the second slot comprising a variable axial length (see para 0103 of Frear); 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.
Note claim 22 is treated as being dependent from claim 9.
Claim(s) 19,22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frear ‘379 in view of Mercier ‘555 as applied to claim 1,9 above, and further in view of Frear ‘379 (Figs 18,19)
Frear (Figs. 33-36) (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Frear (as modified above) (Figs 33-36) is silent about the notch being one of angular and arcuate. Frear (Figs. 18,19) teaches a notch (near where reference character 472 is pointing in Figure 18) that is angular. 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 Frear (as modified above) (Figs. 33-36) to have the notch be one of angular and arcuate as taught by Frear (Figs. 18,19) since such a modification facilitates insertion.
Note claim 22 is treated as being dependent from claim 9.
Claim(s) 19,22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frear ‘379 in view of Ojanen as applied to claim 1,9 above, and further in view of Frear ‘379 (Figs 18,19)
Frear (as modified above) (Figs. 33-36) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Frear (as modified above) (Figs 33-36) is silent about the notch being one of angular and arcuate. Frear (Figs. 18,19) teaches a notch (near where reference character 472 is pointing in Figure 18) that is angular. 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 Frear (as modified above) (Figs. 33-36) to have the notch be one of angular and arcuate as taught by Frear (Figs. 18,19) since such a modification facilitates insertion.
Note claim 22 is treated as being dependent from claim 9.
Claim(s) 19,22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frear ‘379 in view of German document ‘438 as applied to claim 1,9 above, and further in view of Frear ‘379 (Figs 18,19)
Frear (as modified above) (Figs. 33-36) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Frear (as modified above) (Figs 33-36) is silent about the notch being one of angular and arcuate. Frear (Figs. 18,19) teaches a notch (near where reference character 472 is pointing in Figure 18) that is angular. 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 Frear (as modified above) (Figs. 33-36) to have the notch be one of angular and arcuate as taught by Frear (Figs. 18,19) since such a modification facilitates insertion.
Claim(s) 1,6-9,14-16,18,19,21,22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP document (EP 0264015) in view of Frear ‘379 and Mercier ‘555.
EP document ‘015 discloses a retainer comprising:
a generally cylindrical hollow body portion (see Figs. 1-7) including an axial forward end and an axial distal end;
a first slot (Figs. 3,5,6, 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 notch (see marked up Figure below) opposite the first slot of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer; and at least one sloped surface (see marked up Figure below) at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer (see Figs. 1-7), the at least one sloped surface comprising a sloped length and a sloped height, the sloped length being greater than the sloped height. EP document ‘015 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, EP document ‘015 is silent about the notch comprising a variable axial length.
Further, EP document ‘015 is silent about the sloped surface at the axial distal end of the retainer being chamfer.
Frear ‘379 teaches the notch comprising a variable axial length (see para 0103).
Mercier teaches the axial distal end of the retainer being chamfer (73, see Fig. 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 modify EP document ‘015 to have the notch comprise a variable axial length as taught by Frear ‘379 since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit/pick into the bore hole of the holder/block.
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 ‘015 to have the (sloped) surface at the axial distal end of the retainer be chamfer as taught by Mercier since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit/pick into the bore hole of the holder/block.. It should be noted that the modification yields a chamfer length being greater than the chamfer height (as depicted in marked up Figure below and/or in similar fashion as depicted in applicants Fig. 19C, 46).
Re claim 6, the sidewall comprising at least one tab (114, Fig. 6) extending axially and radially inwardly, 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, wherein the at least one tab comprises two tabs (114, Fig. 6) disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot.
Re claim 8, further comprising: at least one tab aperture (116, Fig. 6) defined by the at least one tab.
Re claim 9, EP ‘015 discloses a bit (see Figs. 1-7) 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 (see Figs. 3,5,6, marked up Figure below) extending through a sidewall of the body portion from the axial forward end to the axial distal end; and a notch (see marked up Figure below) opposite the first slot of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer; and at least one sloped surface (see marked up Figures below) at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer (see Figs. 1-7), the at least one sloped surface comprising a sloped length and a sloped height, the sloped length being greater than the sloped height. EP document ‘015 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, EP document ‘015 is silent about the notch comprising a variable axial length.
Further, EP document ‘015 is silent about the sloped surface at the axial distal end of the retainer being chamfer.
Frear ‘379 teaches the notch comprising a variable axial length (see para 0103).
Mercier teaches the axial distal end of the retainer being chamfer (73, see Fig. 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 modify EP document ‘015 to have the notch comprise a variable axial length as taught by Frear ‘379 since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit/pick into the bore hole of the holder/block.
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 ‘015 to have the (sloped) surface at the axial distal end of the retainer be chamfer as taught by Mercier since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit/pick into the bore hole of the holder/block.. It should be noted that the modification yields a chamfer length being greater than the chamfer height (as depicted in marked up Figure below and/or in similar fashion as depicted in applicants Fig. 19C, 46).
Re claim 14, the sidewall of the retainer comprising at least one tab (114, Fig. 6) extending axially and radially inwardly, 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 15, the at least one tab comprising two tabs (114, Fig. 6) disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot of the retainer.
Re claim 16, the retainer further comprising: at least one tab aperture (116, Fig. 6) defined by the at least one tab.
Note claim 21 is treated as being dependent from claim 9.
Re claim 18,21 EP document ‘015 further comprising: a second slot extending from the notch (see marked up Figure below) through the sidewall of the retainer; 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. However, EP document ‘015 is silent about the second slot comprising a variable axial length. Frear teaches a second slot comprising a variable axial length (see para 0103).
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 ‘015 to have the second slot comprise a variable axial length as taught by Frear ‘379 since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit/pick into the bore hole of the holder/block.
Note claim 22 is treated as being dependent from claim 9.
Re claim 19, 22 the notch being one of angular and arcuate (see marked up Figure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
816
524
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
722
880
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1,6-9,14-16,18,19,21,22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP document (EP 0264015) in view of Frear ‘379 and Ojanen ‘888
EP document ‘015 discloses a retainer comprising:
a generally cylindrical hollow body portion (see Figs. 1-7) including an axial forward end and an axial distal end;
a first slot (Figs. 3,5,6, see marked up Figure above) extending through a sidewall of the body portion from the axial forward end to the axial distal end; and a notch (see marked up Figure above) opposite the first slot of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer; and at least one sloped surface (see marked up Figure above) at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer (see Figs. 1-7), the at least one sloped surface comprising a sloped length and a sloped height, the sloped length being greater than the sloped height. EP document ‘015 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, EP document ‘015 is silent about the notch comprising a variable axial length.
Further, EP document ‘015 is silent about the sloped surface at the axial distal end of the retainer being chamfer.
Frear ‘379 teaches the notch comprising a variable axial length (see para 0103).
Ojanen teaches the axial distal end of the retainer being chamfer (col. 4 line 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 modify EP document ‘015 to have the notch comprise a variable axial length as taught by Frear ‘379 since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit/pick into the bore hole of the holder/block.
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 ‘015 to have the (sloped) surface at the axial distal end of the retainer be chamfer as taught by Ojanen since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit/pick into the bore hole of the holder/block.. It should be noted that the modification yields a chamfer length being greater than the chamfer height (as depicted in marked up Figure above and/or in similar fashion as depicted in applicants Fig. 19C, 46).
Re claim 6, the sidewall comprising at least one tab (114, Fig. 6) extending axially and radially inwardly, 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, wherein the at least one tab comprises two tabs (114, Fig. 6) disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot.
Re claim 8, further comprising: at least one tab aperture (116, Fig. 6) defined by the at least one tab.
Re claim 9, EP ‘015 discloses a bit (see Figs. 1-7) 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 (see Figs. 3,5,6, marked up Figure above) extending through a sidewall of the body portion from the axial forward end to the axial distal end; and a notch (see marked up Figure above) opposite the first slot of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer; and at least one sloped surface (see marked up Figures above) at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer (see Figs. 1-7), the at least one sloped surface comprising a sloped length and a sloped height, the sloped length being greater than the sloped height. EP document ‘015 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, EP document ‘015 is silent about the notch comprising a variable axial length.
Further, EP document ‘015 is silent about the sloped surface at the axial distal end of the retainer being chamfer.
Frear ‘379 teaches the notch comprising a variable axial length (see para 0103).
Ojanen teaches the axial distal end of the retainer being chamfer (col. 4 line 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 modify EP document ‘015 to have the notch comprise a variable axial length as taught by Frear ‘379 since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit/pick into the bore hole of the holder/block.
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 ‘015 to have the (sloped) surface at the axial distal end of the retainer be chamfer as taught by Ojanen since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit/pick into the bore hole of the holder/block.. It should be noted that the modification yields a chamfer length being greater than the chamfer height (as depicted in marked up Figure above and/or in similar fashion as depicted in applicants Fig. 19C, 46).
Re claim 14, the sidewall of the retainer comprising at least one tab (114, Fig. 6) extending axially and radially inwardly, 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 15, the at least one tab comprising two tabs (114, Fig. 6) disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot of the retainer.
Re claim 16, the retainer further comprising: at least one tab aperture (116, Fig. 6) defined by the at least one tab.
Note claim 21 is treated as being dependent from claim 9.
Re claim 18,21 EP document ‘015 further comprising: a second slot extending from the notch (see marked up Figure above) through the sidewall of the retainer; 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. However, EP document ‘015 is silent about the second slot comprising a variable axial length. Frear teaches a second slot comprising a variable axial length (see para 0103).
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 ‘015 to have the second slot comprise a variable axial length as taught by Frear ‘379 since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit/pick into the bore hole of the holder/block.
Note claim 22 is treated as being dependent from claim 9.
Re claim 19, 22 the notch being one of angular and arcuate (see marked up Figure above).
Claim(s) 1,6-9,14-16,18,19,21,22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP document (EP 0264015) in view of Frear ‘379 and German document (DE 10142438).
EP document ‘015 discloses a retainer comprising:
a generally cylindrical hollow body portion (see Figs. 1-7) including an axial forward end and an axial distal end;
a first slot (Figs. 3,5,6, see marked up Figure above) extending through a sidewall of the body portion from the axial forward end to the axial distal end; and a notch (see marked up Figure above) opposite the first slot of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer; and at least one sloped surface (see marked up Figure above) at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer (see Figs. 1-7), the at least one sloped surface comprising a sloped length and a sloped height, the sloped length being greater than the sloped height. EP document ‘015 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, EP document ‘015 is silent about the notch comprising a variable axial length.
Further, EP document ‘015 is silent about the sloped surface at the axial distal end of the retainer being chamfer.
Frear ‘379 teaches the notch comprising a variable axial length (see para 0103).
German document ‘438 teaches the axial distal end of the retainer being chamfer (33, 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 EP document ‘015 to have the notch comprise a variable axial length as taught by Frear ‘379 since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit/pick into the bore hole of the holder/block.
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 ‘015 to have the (sloped) surface at the axial distal end of the retainer be chamfer as taught by German document ‘438 since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit/pick into the bore hole of the holder/block. It should be noted that the modification yields a chamfer length being greater than the chamfer height (as depicted in marked up Figure above and/or in similar fashion as depicted in applicants Fig. 19C, 46).
Re claim 6, the sidewall comprising at least one tab (114, Fig. 6) extending axially and radially inwardly, 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, wherein the at least one tab comprises two tabs (114, Fig. 6) disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot.
Re claim 8, further comprising: at least one tab aperture (116, Fig. 6) defined by the at least one tab.
Re claim 9, EP ‘015 discloses a bit (see Figs. 1-7) 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 (see Figs. 3,5,6, marked up Figure above) extending through a sidewall of the body portion from the axial forward end to the axial distal end; and a notch (see marked up Figure above) opposite the first slot of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer; and at least one sloped surface (see marked up Figures above) at the axial distal end of the retainer extending to an outer surface of the retainer (see Figs. 1-7), the at least one sloped surface comprising a sloped length and a sloped height, the sloped length being greater than the sloped height. EP document ‘015 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, EP document ‘015 is silent about the notch comprising a variable axial length.
Further, EP document ‘015 is silent about the sloped surface at the axial distal end of the retainer being chamfer.
Frear ‘379 teaches the notch comprising a variable axial length (see para 0103).
German document ‘438 teaches the axial distal end of the retainer being chamfer (33, 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 EP document ‘015 to have the notch comprise a variable axial length as taught by Frear ‘379 since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit/pick into the bore hole of the holder/block.
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 ‘015 to have the (sloped) surface at the axial distal end of the retainer be chamfer as taught by German document ‘438 since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit/pick into the bore hole of the holder/block.. It should be noted that the modification yields a chamfer length being greater than the chamfer height (as depicted in marked up Figure above and/or in similar fashion as depicted in applicants Fig. 19C, 46).
Re claim 14, the sidewall of the retainer comprising at least one tab (114, Fig. 6) extending axially and radially inwardly, 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 15, the at least one tab comprising two tabs (114, Fig. 6) disposed approximately 180 degrees from each other, each tab being approximately 90 degrees from the first slot of the retainer.
Re claim 16, the retainer further comprising: at least one tab aperture (116, Fig. 6) defined by the at least one tab.
Note claim 21 is treated as being dependent from claim 9.
Re claim 18,21 EP document ‘015 further comprising: a second slot extending from the notch (see marked up Figure above) through the sidewall of the retainer; 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. However, EP document ‘015 is silent about the second slot comprising a variable axial length. Frear teaches a second slot comprising a variable axial length (see para 0103).
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 ‘015 to have the second slot comprise a variable axial length as taught by Frear ‘379 since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit/pick into the bore hole of the holder/block.
Note claim 22 is treated as being dependent from claim 9.
Re claim 19, 22 the notch being one of angular and arcuate (see marked up Figure above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Frear does not teach "a notch 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. The examiner disagrees. See marked up Figure of Frear above and para 0103 of Frear. Applicant fails to point exactly what EP document ‘015 fails to teach. See marked up Figure to EP document wherein "a notch opposite the first slot of the retainer, the notch extending inwardly from the axial distal end of the retainer” is depicted. Frear teaches the reason why the notch/second slot comprises a variable axial length (see para 0103).
Mercier, Ojanen and German document ‘438 all teach the axial distal end of the retainer being chamfer (73, Fig. 7; col. 4 line 58+; 33, see Fig. 2).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
1/17/2026