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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 is confusing because line 2 calls for “a second angle of the countersink”; however, there was never a “first” angle of the countersink previously recited.
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) 1,2,28,29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO document ‘582 in view of Russian (RU 2198292) or Bower, Jr. (US 4327947).
WO document ‘582 discloses a retainer comprising:
a generally cylindrical hollow body portion (see Fig. 4) including an axial forward end and an axial distal end;
a first slot (see Fig. 4) extending through a sidewall of the body portion from the axial forward end to the axial distal end; and
a generally cylindrical reduced diameter distal section (124) disposed between the axial distal end of the retainer and a shoulder (see marked up Figure below) laterally and axially extending from a forward end of the reduced diameter distal section to an outer surface of the body portion of the retainer forward of the reduced diameter distal section, the reduced diameter distal section comprising a distal section outer diameter that is less than an outer diameter of the body portion of the retainer forward of the reduced diameter distal section (see Figs. 4-7), the reduced diameter distal section configured to engage a bore of a bit holder adjacent a forward end of the bit holder.
The claim is directed to a “retainer” and clearly depending on the particular bore (size, dimension) of the bit holder, the reduced diameter section of the retainer is configured to engage the bore.
WO ‘582 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, WO ‘582 lacks
a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a first radial end surface of the first slot; and a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a second radial end surface of the first slot.
Russian document ‘292 and Bower, Jr. ‘947 both teach a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a first radial end surface of the first slot; and a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a second radial end surface of the first slot (see Fig. 6; Fig. 2 respectively). 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 WO document ‘582 to include a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a first radial end surface of the first slot; and a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a second radial end surface of the first slot as taught by either Russian document ‘292 or Bower, Jr. ‘947 since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit/retainer into the holder/block.
Re claim 2, the shoulder (see marked up Figure below) stepping axially outward from an outer surface of the reduced diameter distal section to the outer surface of the body portion of the retainer forward of the reduced diameter distal section.
Re claim 28, WO ‘582 discloses a bit comprising:
a body portion (see Figs.6,7); a generally cylindrical shank axially depending from a bottom of the body portion, the shank comprising a distal section adjacent a distal end of the shank and a distal shank flange (see Figs. 6,7) adjacent a forward end of the distal section of the shank; and
a retainer (see Figs. 4-7) disposed circumferentially about the shank, the retainer comprising: a generally cylindrical hollow body portion including an axial forward end and an axial distal end;
a first slot extending through a sidewall of the body portion from the axial forward end to the axial distal end; and
a generally cylindrical reduced diameter distal section disposed between the axial distal end of the retainer and a shoulder (see marked up Figure below) laterally and axially extending from a forward end of the reduced diameter distal section to an outer surface of the body portion of the retainer forward of the reduced diameter distal section, the reduced diameter distal section comprising a distal section outer diameter that is less than an outer diameter of the body portion of the retainer forward of the reduced diameter distal section (see Figs. 4-7), the reduced diameter distal section configured to engage a bore of a bit holder adjacent a forward end of the bit holder.
The claim is directed to a “bit” and clearly depending on the particular bore (size, dimension) of the bit holder, the reduced diameter section of the retainer is configured to engage the bore.
WO ‘582 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, WO ‘582 lacks
a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a first radial end surface of the first slot; and a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a second radial end surface of the first slot.
Russian document ‘292 and Bower, Jr. ‘947 both teach a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a first radial end surface of the first slot; and a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a second radial end surface of the first slot (see Fig. 6; Fig. 2 respectively). 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 WO document ‘582 to include a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end
to a first radial end surface of the first slot; and a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a second radial end surface of the first slot as taught by either Russian document ‘292 or Bower, Jr. ‘947 since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit/retainer into the holder/block.
Re claim 29, see discussion above with respect to claim 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
750
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 12,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Levankovsky (US 20050082899).
Levankovsky discloses a bit comprising: a unitary body portion comprising a washer (see marked up Figure below) portion adjacent a distal end of the unitary body portion (1), the washer portion integrally formed as part of the unitary body portion and; a generally cylindrical shank (4) depending from a bottom of the body portion (see Figs. 1-3) (see Fig. 4), the shank comprising: a generally cylindrical forward section of the shank adjacent the bottom of the unitary body portion; and a generally cylindrical distal section of the shank adjacent a distal end of the shank, the distal section comprising a diameter that is one of less than a diameter of the forward section of the shank and equal to the diameter of the forward section of the shank (see Fig 4), the distal section of the shank configured to be spaced from an inner surface of a retainer in which it is retained (see Fig. 11); and a distal shank flange (see Fig. 4) adjacent a forward end of the generally cylindrical distal section of the shank adapted to engage a retainer that is mounted circumferentially around the shank.
Re claim 16, further comprising: a rear annular flange of the washer portion adapted to form a close coupling with an annular surface at a forward end of a bit holder (see Fig. 11).
PNG
media_image2.png
464
582
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Sollami (US 20070152495).
Sollami ‘495 discloses a bit comprising: a unitary body portion comprising a washer portion (18) adjacent a distal end of the unitary body portion, the washer portion integrally formed as part of the unitary body portion and; a generally cylindrical shank (22) depending from a bottom of the body portion (see Fig. 3), the shank comprising: a generally cylindrical forward section of the shank adjacent the bottom of the unitary body portion; and a generally cylindrical distal section of the shank adjacent a distal end of the shank, the distal section comprising a diameter that is one of less than a diameter of the forward section of the shank and equal to the diameter of the forward section of the shank, the distal section of the shank configured to be spaced from an inner surface of a retainer in which it is retained; and a distal shank flange (26) adjacent a forward end of the generally cylindrical distal section of the shank adapted to engage a retainer (tab 34) that is mounted circumferentially around the shank.
Claim(s) 12,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Sollami (US 20120013168).
Sollami ‘168 discloses a bit comprising: a unitary body portion comprising a washer portion (see marked up Figures below) adjacent a distal end of the unitary body portion, the washer portion integrally formed as part of the unitary body portion and; a generally cylindrical shank depending from a bottom of the body portion (see Figures), the shank comprising: a generally cylindrical forward section of the shank adjacent the bottom of the unitary body portion; and a generally cylindrical distal section of the shank adjacent a distal end of the shank, the distal section comprising a diameter that is one of less than a diameter of the forward section of the shank and equal to the diameter of the forward section of the shank, the distal section of the shank configured to be spaced from an inner surface of a retainer in which it is retained; and a distal shank flange (34) adjacent a forward end of the generally cylindrical distal section of the shank adapted to engage a retainer (tab 33) that is mounted circumferentially around the shank.
Re claim 16, further comprising: a rear annular flange of the washer portion adapted to form a close coupling with an annular surface at a forward end of a bit holder (see Figs. 2,8).
PNG
media_image3.png
844
702
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
798
792
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3,30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO document ‘582 in view of either Russian document ‘292 or Bower, Jr. ‘947 as applied to claims 2, 29 above, and further in view of O’Neill (US 5088797).
Re claim 3, WO document ‘582 (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, WO document ‘582 (as modified above) is silent about the outer surface of the shoulder being arcuate.
O’Neill ‘797 teaches the outer surface of the shoulder (where member 55 transitions to member 53, Fig. 5; where 257 transitions to 255, Fig. 9) being arcuate.
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 WO document ‘582 (as modified above) to have the outer surface of the shoulder being arcuate as taught by O’Neill since varying the shape of the shoulder (tapered etc) withstands various impact forces.
Re claim 30, see discussion above with respect to claims 3.
Claim(s) 4,31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO document ‘582 in view of either Russian document ‘292 or Bower, Jr. ‘947 as applied to claims 1, 28 above, and further in view of German document (DE 102005051450).
Re claim 4, WO document ‘582 (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, WO document ‘582 (as modified above) is silent about further comprising: a chamfer extending from the axial forward end of the retainer to the outer surface of the body portion adjacent the axial forward end. German document ‘450 teaches a chamfer extending from the axial forward end of the retainer to an outer surface of the body portion adjacent the axial forward end (see Fig. 1). 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 WO document ‘582 (as modified above) to further comprise: a chamfer extending from the axial forward end of the retainer to the outer surface of the body portion adjacent the axial forward end as taught by German document ‘450 since such a modification reduce the risk of injuries due to sharp edges and the like.
Re claim 31, see discussion of claim 4 above.
Claim(s) 6,33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO document ‘582 in view of either Russian document ‘292 or Bower, Jr. ‘947 as applied to claims 1, 28 above, and further in view of Sollami (US 20070152495).
Re claim 6, WO document ‘582 (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, WO document ‘582 (as modified above) is silent about comprising three tabs extending axially and radially inwardly from the sidewall of the body portion of the retainer, the three tabs disposed approximately 120 degrees from each other.
Sollami ‘495 teaches comprising three tabs extending axially and radially inwardly from the sidewall of the body portion of the retainer, the three tabs disposed approximately 120 degrees from each other (see Fig. 5).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify WO document ‘582 (as modified above) to include three tabs extending axially and radially inwardly from the sidewall of the body portion of the retainer, the three tabs disposed approximately 120 degrees from each other as taught by Sollami ‘495 since such a modification provides the desired retention force to retain the bit in the block/holder.
Re claim 33, see discussion of claims 6 above.
Claim(s) 12,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO document ‘582 in view of Sollami ‘495.
Re claim 12, WO document ‘582 discloses a bit comprising:
a unitary body portion comprising a washer portion (114, see marked up Figure below) adjacent a distal end of the unitary body portion, the washer portion integrally formed as part of the unitary body portion; and a generally cylindrical shank depending from a bottom of the body portion, the shank comprising:
a generally cylindrical forward section of the shank adjacent the bottom of the unitary body portion; and
a generally cylindrical distal section of the shank adjacent a distal end of the shank, the distal section comprising a diameter that is one of less than a diameter of the forward section of the shank and equal to the diameter of the forward section of the shank (see Figs. 6, 7), the distal section of the shank configured to be spaced from an inner surface of a retainer in which it is retained (see Fig. 6, para 0024, allow rotation of pick). WO ‘582 appears to show in Figure 4 that the tab (140) when positioned in channel 112, the tab (retainer) is adapted to engage a distal shank flange at a forward end of the generally cylindrical distal section of the shank and for the retainer to be mounted circumferentially around the shank (see marked up Figures below). However, in the event applicant disputes such teaching, applicant is directed to Sollami ‘495 wherein it is taught to have a tab (34) (retainer) engage a distal shank flange (26) at a forward end of the generally cylindrical distal section of the shank and for the retainer to be mounted circumferentially around the shank.
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 WO document ‘582 to have
have the tab engage a distal shank flange at a forward end of the generally cylindrical distal section of the shank and for the retainer to be mounted circumferentially around the shank as taught by Sollami ‘495 since such a modification aid in prevent the bit from being ejected from the block.
Re claim 16, further comprising: a rear annular flange of the washer portion adapted to form a close coupling with an annular surface at a forward end of a bit holder (see Figs. 6,7 of WO document ‘582 ).
PNG
media_image5.png
812
640
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
704
776
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
760
574
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 17,18,22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO document ‘582 in view of Sollami (US 20070152495) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of either Russian document ‘292 or Bower, Jr. ‘947.
Re claim 17, WO ‘582 further comprising: a retainer disposed circumferentially about the shank, the retainer comprising:
a generally cylindrical hollow body portion including an axial forward end and an axial distal end;
a first slot extending through a sidewall of the body portion from the axial forward end to the axial distal end; and
a reduced diameter distal section (124) disposed between the axial distal end of the retainer and a shoulder (see marked up Figure above) laterally and axially extending from a forward end of the reduced diameter distal section to an outer surface of the body portion of the retainer forward of the reduced diameter distal section, the reduced diameter distal section comprising a distal section outer diameter that is less than an outer diameter of the body portion of the retainer forward of the reduced diameter distal section (see Figs. 4-7 of WO document ‘582).
WO document ‘582 (as modified by Sollami ‘495) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, WO document ‘582 (as modified by Sollami ‘495) lack
a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a first radial end surface of the first slot; and a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a second radial end surface of the first slot.
Russian document ‘292 and Bower, Jr. ‘947 both teach a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a first radial end surface of the first slot; and a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a second radial end surface of the first slot (see Fig. 6; Fig. 2 respectively). 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 WO document ‘582 (as modified by Sollami ‘495) to include a first angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a first radial end surface of the first slot; and a second angled portion extending from the axial distal end to a second radial end surface of the first slot as taught by either Russian document ‘292 or Bower, Jr. ‘947 since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit/retainer into the holder/block.
Re claim 18, the shoulder (see marked up Figure above of WO document ‘582) stepping axially outward from an outer surface of the reduced diameter distal section to the outer surface of the body portion of the retainer forward of the reduced diameter distal section.
Re claim 22, three tabs extending axially and radially inwardly from the sidewall of the body portion of the retainer, the three tabs disposed approximately 120 degrees from each other (see Fig. 5 of Sollami ‘495, the three tabs adapted to engage the distal shank flange of the shank of the bit to prevent the retainer from being removed from the shank.
Claim(s) 7,34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO document ‘582 in view of either Russian document ‘292 or Bower, Jr. ‘947 as applied to claims 1, 28 above, and further in view of either WO document (WO 9739221 or O’Neill (US 5088797).
Re claim 7, WO document ‘582 (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, WO document ‘582 (as modified above) is silent about a distal section sidewall thickness of the reduced diameter distal section is less than a sidewall thickness of the body portion of the retainer forward of the reduced diameter distal section. WO document ‘221 and O’Neill ‘797 both teach a distal section sidewall thickness of the reduced diameter distal section is less than a sidewall thickness of the body portion of the retainer forward of the reduced diameter distal section (see Figs. 5-10 of WO document ‘221 and Figs. 5,9 of O’Neill ‘797). 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 WO document ‘582 (as modified above) to have a distal section sidewall thickness of the reduced diameter distal section is less than a sidewall thickness of the body portion of the retainer forward of the reduced diameter distal section as taught by either WO document ‘221 or O’Neill ‘797 since such a modification aids in the interference fit.
Re claim 34, see discussion of claim 7 above.
Claim(s) 8-10,35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO document ‘582 in view of either Russian document ‘292 or Bower, Jr. ‘947 as applied to claims 1, 28 above, and further in view of EPO document (EP 0264015).
Re claim 8, WO document ‘582 (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, WO document ‘582 (as modified above) is silent about including a notch extending from the axial distal end of the retainer approximately 180 degrees from the first slot of the retainer, the notch comprising a variable length.
EP document ‘015 teaches a notch (see marked up Figure below) extending from the axial distal end of the retainer approximately 180 degrees from the first slot of the retainer, the notch comprising a variable length.
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 WO document ‘582 (as modified above) to include a notch extending from the axial distal end of the retainer approximately 180 degrees from the first slot of the retainer, the notch comprising a variable length as taught by EP document ‘015 since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit assembly into the block.
Re claim 9, the notch being one of angular and arcuate (see marked up Figure below).
Re claim 10, a second slot axially extending from a forward end of the notch through the sidewall of the body portion of the retainer to a second slot termination, the second slot disposed a predetermined distance from the axial distal end of the retainer approximately 180 degrees from the first slot (see marked up Figure below).
Re claims 35-37, see discussion above with respect to claims 8-10.
PNG
media_image8.png
526
792
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO document ‘582 in view of Sollami ‘495 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Sollami (US 20020092210)
WO document ‘582 (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, WO document ‘582 (as modified above) is silent about
a tapered portion adjacent a rear annular flange of the washer portion, the tapered portion adapted to contact a countersink at a forward end of a bore of a bit holder to radially align the bit with the bore of the bit holder. Sollami ‘210 teaches a tapered portion (66, Fig. 4) adjacent a rear annular flange of the washer portion, the tapered portion adapted to contact a countersink (166 Fig. 4) at a forward end of a bore of a bit holder to radially align the bit with the bore of the bit holder.
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 further modify WO document ‘582 (as modified above) to include a tapered portion adjacent a rear annular flange of the washer portion, the tapered portion adapted to contact a countersink at a forward end of a bore of a bit holder to radially align the bit with the bore of the bit holder as taught by Sollami ‘210 since such a modification facilitates rotation of the bit.
Re claim 14, the tapered portion comprising a first angle (66) that is adapted to be complementary to a second angle of the countersink (116) of the bore of the bit holder (Fig. 4 of Sollami ‘210).
Re claim 15, further comprising at least one of: a transition radius of the washer portion extending from the rear annular flange to the tapered portion; and a transition radius of the tapered portion extending from the distal end of the tapered portion to a forward end of the shank (Fig. 4 of Sollami ‘210).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO document ‘582 in view of Sollami ‘495 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Sollami (US 20170268334)
WO document ‘582 (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, WO document ‘582 (as modified above) is silent about
a tapered portion adjacent a rear annular flange of the washer portion, the tapered portion adapted to contact a countersink at a forward end of a bore of a bit holder to radially align the bit with the bore of the bit holder. Sollami ‘334 teaches a tapered portion (see Figs.5-14) adjacent a rear annular flange of the washer portion, the tapered portion adapted to contact a countersink (see Figs. 5-14) at a forward end of a bore of a bit holder to radially align the bit with the bore of the bit holder.
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 further modify WO document ‘582 (as modified above) to include a tapered portion adjacent a rear annular flange of the washer portion, the tapered portion adapted to contact a countersink at a forward end of a bore of a bit holder to radially align the bit with the bore of the bit holder as taught by Sollami ‘334 since such a modification facilitates rotation of the bit.
Re claim 14, the tapered portion comprising a first angle (see Figs. 5-14) that is adapted to be complementary to a second angle of the countersink (see Figs. 5-14) of the bore of the bit holder (Figs 5-14 of Sollami ‘334).
Re claim 15, further comprising at least one of: a transition radius of the washer portion extending from the rear annular flange to the tapered portion; and a transition radius of the tapered portion extending from the distal end of the tapered portion to a forward end of the shank (Figs 5-15 of Sollami ‘334).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO document ‘582 in view of Sollami (US 20070152495) and either Russian document ‘292 or Bower, Jr. ‘947 as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of O’Neill (US 5088797)
WO document ‘582 (as twice modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, WO document ‘582 (as twice modified above) is silent about the outer surface of the shoulder being arcuate.
O’Neill teaches the outer surface of shoulder (where member 55 transitions to member 53, Fig. 5; where 257 transitions to 255, Fig. 9) being arcuate.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify WO document ‘582 (as twice modified above) to have the outer surface of the shoulder be arcuate as taught by O’Neill ‘797 since varying the shape of the shoulder (tapered etc) withstands various impact forces.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO document ‘582 in view of Sollami (US 20070152495) and either Russian document ‘292 or Bower, Jr. ‘947 as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of German document (DE 102005051450).
WO document ‘582 (as twice modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, WO document ‘582 (as twice modified above) is silent about further comprising: a chamfer extending from the axial forward end of the retainer to the outer surface of the body portion adjacent the axial forward end. German document ‘450 teaches a chamfer extending from the axial forward end of the retainer to an outer surface of the body portion adjacent the axial forward end (see Fig. 1). 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 WO document ‘582 (as twice modified above) to further comprise a chamfer extending from the axial forward end of the retainer to the outer surface of the body portion adjacent the axial forward end as taught by German document ‘450 since such a modification reduce the risk of injuries due to sharp edges and the like.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO document ‘582 in view of Sollami (US 20070152495) and either Russian document ‘292 or Bower, Jr. ‘947 as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of WO document (WO 9739221) or O’Neill (US 5088797).
WO document ‘582 (as twice modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, WO document ‘582 (as twice modified above) is silent about a distal section sidewall thickness of the reduced diameter distal section is less than a sidewall thickness of the body portion of the retainer forward of the reduced diameter distal section. WO document ‘221 and O’Neill ‘797 both teach a distal section sidewall thickness of the reduced diameter distal section is less than a sidewall thickness of the body portion of the retainer forward of the reduced diameter distal section (see Figs. 5-10 of WO document ‘221 and Figs. 5,9 of O’Neill ‘797). 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 WO document ‘582 (as twice modified above) to have a distal section sidewall thickness of the reduced diameter distal section is less than a sidewall thickness of the body portion of the retainer forward of the reduced diameter distal section as taught by either WO document ‘221 or O’Neill ‘797 since such a modification aids in the interference fit.
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO document ‘582 in view of Sollami (US 20070152495) and either Russian document ‘292 or Bower, Jr. ‘947 as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of EPO document (EP 0264015).
WO document ‘582 (as twice modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, WO document ‘582 (as twice modified above) is silent about including a notch extending from the axial distal end of the retainer approximately 180 degrees from the first slot of the retainer, the notch comprising a variable length.
EP document ‘015 teaches a notch (see marked up Figure above) extending from the axial distal end of the retainer approximately 180 degrees from the first slot of the retainer, the notch comprising a variable length.
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 WO document ‘582 (as twice modified above) to include a notch extending from the axial distal end of the retainer approximately 180 degrees from the first slot of the retainer, the notch comprising a variable length as taught by EP document ‘015 since such a modification facilitates the insertion of the bit assembly into the block.
Re claim 25, the notch being one of angular and arcuate (see marked up Figure above).
Re claim 26, a second slot axially extending from a forward end of the notch through the sidewall of the body portion of the retainer to a second slot termination, the second slot disposed a predetermined distance from the axial distal end of the retainer approximately 180 degrees from the first slot (see marked up Figure above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 28 and their respective dependent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on at least one reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Levankovsky ‘899, Sollami ‘495 and Sollami ‘168 all fail to teach a washer portion adjacent a distal end of the unitary body portion, the washer portion integrally formed from the unitary body portion. The examiner disagrees. See marked up Figures above depicting what the examiner construed as the “washer”. There is no claimed limitation precluding such claimed interpretation.
With regards to claim 12, applicant failed to point out what claimed limitation(s) is/are not taught by the combination of WO document ‘582 in view of Sollami ‘495.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5,11,21,27, 32,38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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
8/20/2026
Prosecution Insights