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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 11/17/2023 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the subject matter of claims 1-15 are sufficiently related. This is not found persuasive because methods and apparatuses require substantially different search strategies and considerations.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/15/2026.
Status of Claims
Pending: claims 1-15
Withdrawn: claims 10-15
Under examination: claims 1-9
Rejected: claims 1-9
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piche (US 4170513 A; cited in prior office action).
Regarding claim 1, with regard to the claimed “A method for recovery of at least one cemented carbide body from a component”, Piche teaches recovering tungsten carbide inserts from scrap mining bits (Abstract).
With regard to the claimed “the method comprising the steps of: a) first clamping the component in a clamping device; and b) simultaneously or cyclically heating and vibrating the component to dislodge the at least one cemented carbide body from the component” Piche teaches treating the carbide inserts in a sulphuric acid bath to eat away part of the steel surrounding the inserts, and then heating the bit and vibrating the heated bit to knock out the inserts, and in another embodiment, heat and vibration alone are used (Abstract). Although Piche does not explicitly teach a step of clamping, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to clamp the component when the vibration occurs, as doing so would ensure that the vibrational forces are transferred to the heated bit. A POSITA recognizes that if an object is subjected to a strong vibrational force, the vibrational force will only be transferred so long as the source and the workpiece are in contact with one another; a POSITA would therefore recognize that ensuring the workpiece and the vibration source are in contact with each other, such as via clamping, would have been obvious.
With regard to the limitations concerning simultaneously/cyclically heating, selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV. C.).
Regarding claim 3, Piche teaches the method of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the cones are heated on a gas forge to cherry red and hit with a jack hammer (col. 3, lines 8-12), and additionally teaches heating bits to a high temperature using a counter current rotary kiln (col. 2, lines 47-54), which are both apparatuses that use flame heating to heat a component workpiece.
Regarding claim 4, Piche teaches the method of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the inserts are heated to a temperature of about 1600°F (about 871°C) (claim 6 of Piche; and col. 2, lines 15-24).
Regarding claim 5, Piche teaches the method of claim 1 above and further teaches performing the acid treatment (which occurs before the main heating) at a temperature of about 150-200°F (claim 5 of Piche; col. 2, lines 60-66).
Claims 2, 5-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piche (US 4170513 A; cited in prior office action); as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Zoller et al. (US 20200323049 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Piche teaches the method of claim 1 above but is silent regarding the use of induction heating.
Zoller teaches a method for a heating of a tool holder by means of an induction heating device for the purpose of a shrink-clamping and/or unshrink-unclamping of tools into and/or from tool holders includes an induction heating unit (Abstract).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the technique of Zoller of using induction heating for unshrink-unclamping of the cemented carbide body of Piche, as doing so would allow for even heating as well as having a high degree of flexibility for a plurality of different tools with the same device [0013], in addition to having increased safety due to the higher degree of control [0016].
Regarding claims 5-6, Piche teaches the method of claim 1 above but is silent regarding the use of induction heating for pre-heating.
Zoller teaches a method for a heating of a tool holder by means of an induction heating device for the purpose of a shrink-clamping and/or unshrink-unclamping of tools into and/or from tool holders includes an induction heating unit (Abstract).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the technique of Zoller of using induction heating as a pre-heating step for unshrink-unclamping of the cemented carbide body of Piche, as doing so would allow for even heating as well as having a high degree of flexibility for a plurality of different tools with the same device [0013], in addition to having increased safety due to the higher degree of control [0016].
Regarding claim 8, Piche teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent regarding rotating the component in a radial and/or axial direction during step b.
Zoller teaches a method for a heating of a tool holder by means of an induction heating device for the purpose of a shrink-clamping and/or unshrink-unclamping of tools into and/or from tool holders includes an induction heating unit (Abstract) [0011]. Zoller further teaches the induction coil and/or the tool holder are/is rotationally moved at least partially around a rotation axis extending in parallel to an axial direction of the tool holder, which is in particular a rotation axis of the induction coil or of the tool holder [0011]. This advantageously allows achieving advantageous heating characteristics [0011].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the technique of Zoller of using induction heating for unshrink-unclamping of the cemented carbide body of Piche, as doing so would allow for even heating as well as having a high degree of flexibility for a plurality of different tools with the same device [0013], in addition to having increased safety due to the higher degree of control [0016].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piche (US 4170513 A; cited in prior office action) in view of Zoller et al. (US 20200323049 A1).
Regarding claim 9, with regard to the claimed “A method for recovery of at least one cemented carbide body from a component”, Piche teaches recovering tungsten carbide inserts from scrap mining bits (Abstract).
With regard to the claimed “the method comprising the steps of: a a) firstly, clamping the component in a clamping device; b) secondly, heating the at least one cemented carbide body using induction heating; and then c) thirdly, vibrating the component to dislodge the at least one cemented carbide body from the component” Piche teaches treating the carbide inserts in a sulphuric acid bath to eat away part of the steel surrounding the inserts, and then heating the bit and vibrating the heated bit to knock out the inserts, and in another embodiment, heat and vibration alone are used (Abstract). Although Piche does not explicitly teach a step of clamping, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to clamp the component when the vibration occurs, as doing so would ensure that the vibrational forces are transferred to the heated bit. A POSITA recognizes that if an object is subjected to a strong vibrational force, the vibrational force will only be transferred so long as the source and the workpiece are in contact with one another; a POSITA would therefore recognize that ensuring the workpiece and the vibration source are in contact with each other, such as via clamping, would have been obvious.
With regard to the limitations concerning firstly performing step a), secondly performing step b), and thirdly performing step c), selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV. C.).
However, Piche is silent regarding the use of induction heating.
Zoller teaches a method for a heating of a tool holder by means of an induction heating device for the purpose of a shrink-clamping and/or unshrink-unclamping of tools into and/or from tool holders includes an induction heating unit (Abstract) [0011]. Zoller further teaches the induction coil and/or the tool holder are/is rotationally moved at least partially around a rotation axis extending in parallel to an axial direction of the tool holder, which is in particular a rotation axis of the induction coil or of the tool holder [0011]. This advantageously allows achieving advantageous heating characteristics [0011].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the technique of Zoller of using induction heating for unshrink-unclamping of the cemented carbide body of Piche, as doing so would allow for even heating as well as having a high degree of flexibility for a plurality of different tools with the same device [0013], in addition to having increased safety due to the higher degree of control [0016].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piche (US 4170513 A; cited in prior office action); as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Zhao et al. (CN111426192A; cited in the IDS filed 11/17/2023).
Regarding claim 7, Piche teaches the method of claim 1 above, but is silent regarding the vibration being controlled by compressed air.
Zhao teaches a method for waste hard alloy roller ring recycling (Abstract), and further teaches using an air hammer for knocking the hard alloy roller ring material (Abstract).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the jack hammer of Piche (jack hammer is used in col. 3, lines 8-12)) with the air hammer of Zhao, as doing so would predictably have the effect of providing a source of strong vibration to help dislodge the insert of Piche.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adil Siddiqui whose telephone number is (571)272-8047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM CST.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/ADIL A. SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights