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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "375" and "376" have both been used to designate an “externally threaded stub”. The specification uses identifier “375” in paragraph [0064] and [0065]. The specification uses identifier “376” in paragraph [0073]. The drawings use identifier “376” in Figure 3A. The drawings use identifier “375” in Figure 3B.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 3B is unclear. Figure 3B includes two distinct features which Examiner is unable to discern. The features are marked by hash lines in the Figure which would indicate a solid material. However, the features do not appear in any other of the drawings and are unlabeled. The features appear to be one the outer circumference of the intermediate portion 140 even though it does not appear Applicant’s other teachings allow for a feature on the outer circumference of intermediate portion of the shank 140. See examiner’s annotated Fig 3B below which includes two “unknown components.”
PNG
media_image1.png
780
1056
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
621, 647, 641, 620, 643, 660 as shown in Fig 6B.
721, 741, 760, 720, 743, 785 as shown in Figs 7A and 7B.
905 as shown in Fig 10. Examiner notes the specification refers to a “cutting head 906”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Paragraph [0066] the phrase “in aa loosening” appears to have a typographical error.
In paragraph [0071], the phrase “know self-feed bits” appears to have a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zeiler et al. (US 7625160 B2).
As to claim 15, Zeiler teaches a self-feed bit system (bit 10), comprising: a shank extending along an axis (connecting structure 22) and configured to be coupled to a tool holder of a power tool (Col 3 lines 63-66: “A connecting structure 22 is supported on the second end 16 of the body 12 and includes an elongated rearwardly-extending drive shaft 24 configured to be received in a tool holder or chuck of a power tool.”); a cutting head (body 12) couplable to the shank (as noted at Col 3 line 63, the connecting structure 22 is “supported” on the body 12. Thus, the body 12 is interpreted as separate from, and couplable to, the connecting structure 22. See also Figs 9, 10, and 12 which show the bit 10 in cross-section. The body 12 and connecting structure 22 are illustrated with different hashing, indicating separate parts) and including a sector shaped base (as shown in Fig 11, the base 18 is sector-shaped. Base 18 sweeps through 270 degrees as illustrated), a radially extending lip at a leading edge of the sector shape facing in a cutting direction (ramp 71, see Fig 7), the lip including a rake face facing the cutting direction at a rake angle relative to the axis (as illustrated); a radially extending cutting blade (blade 62) coupled to the radially extending lip (the blade 62 is coupled to the ramp 71 as illustrated in Fig 2) and extending axially forward from the base at a first height measured in an axial direction relative to a bottom of the base (as shown in Fig 2, the blade 62 is at a first height in the axial direction relative to the base 18); and an at least partially threaded tip (feed shaft 30 has threads as illustrated) coupled to the shank (as shown in Fig 9, the feed shaft 30 is coupled to the connecting support 22 via the locking mechanism 76) and extending axially forward of the cutting blade (as illustrated in Fig 9), wherein the cutting head is removably couplable to the shank in a tool-free manner (as shown in Fig 9, the locking mechanism 76 holds the second end 33 of the feed shaft 30. The feed shaft 30 holds the body 12. Thus, when the locking mechanism 76 is disengaged, the feed shaft 30 is removable from the body 12, and the body 12 is removable from the connecting structure 22. The locking mechanism is disengaged without a tool as it is a lever which is manipulated by a user’s fingers.).
As to claim 18, Zeiler teaches self-feed bit system of claim 15, wherein the cutting head comprises a plurality of removable and interchangeable cutting heads (see Col 8 lines 28-60 wherein Zeiler discusses a “kit.” See lines 32-37: “Alternatively, or in addition, a number of differently-sized and/or differently-configured cutting tool bodies 12 (e.g., having different cutting diameters, material properties, numbers of teeth 40, tip profiles, shaft sizes and configurations, etc.) can be packaged together and sold as a kit.”), and further comprising a package inside of which the shank and the plurality of the one or more removable and interchangeable cutting heads are packaged with the plurality of cutting heads lying flat within the package (the particular arrangement of the claimed interchangeable cutting heads within the package is considered here to be mere design choice. Any reasonable arrangement of heads within the packaged kit of Zeiler would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, including arrangements in which the heads are laid flat within the package as a matter of common sense and skill).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 and 19-20 are allowed.
As to claim 1, Examiner’s best art does not teach a self-feed bit system comprising “two or more teeth positioned on a perimeter of the base trailing the cutting blade, each tooth extending axially forward from the base at a second height measured in an axial direction relative to a bottom of the base, the second height being less than the first height.”
Rather, in each of Examiner’s cited references, any teeth positioned on a perimeter of the base trailing the cutting blade are at a second height which are greater than or equal to the first height. See for example Zeiler Fig 8 which illustrates a cutting tip 52 is at a greater height than the blade 62.
See also Stewart (US 2,883,888) which teaches grooving spurs 22 extend past working edges 21.
See also Deliso (US 2,962,066) which teaches a radially extending blade 26 which extends above the base 22, but does not teach trailing teeth.
See also Byers et al. (US 3,945,753) which teaches spurs 76 extend beyond cutting edge 72.
See also Stewart (US 4,090,807) which teaches spurs 13 extend beyond cutting blades 3.
See also Walton, II (US 4,239,427) which teaches a cutter 28 which extends beyond the blade 50.
See also Dufree (US 8,070,397) which teaches teeth 14 at the same height as cutting edge 40.
As to claim 19, Examiner’s best art does not teach or obviate the combination of a rake angle of at least 40 degrees, a pitch of less than or equal to 1.2mm, and teeth comprising carbide or cermet as required by the claim.
Claim 16 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 16 requires the cutting head to include a first threaded portion and the shank to include a second threaded portion to removably couple the cutting head to the shank. This claim depends from claim 15 which requires the cutting head to be removable from the shank in a tool-free manner. Examiner’s best art does not teach the cutting head being removably coupled to the cutting head via threads and being removable without a tool. Rather, Zeiler teaches the cutting head is attached to the shank via the feed shaft 30 and the locking mechanism 76, which is not a threaded connection.
Claims 2-14 depend from claim 1. Claim 17 depends from claim 16. Claim 20 depends from claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 19 February 2026