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 Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “extending below than a shank lower limit” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 13, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FR 2981289 A1 to (BLANCHARD).
PNG
media_image1.png
815
559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, (BLANCHARD) discloses a “drill bit” with a proximal end comprising a shank (1) adapted to attach to a powered drive mechanism (drill chuck 15 of a drill; Fig. 2), and a distal end, a center of the shank (1) defining a longitudinal axis as between said proximal and distal ends, said drill bit comprising: a. a neck extending distally from said shank (see annotated Fig. 2); b. a top shoulder depending from said neck, said top shoulder comprising an upper deviation from said longitudinal axis at an angle greater than zero (see annotated Fig. 2); c. a bottom shoulder depending from said neck, said bottom shoulder comprising a lower deviation from said longitudinal axis at an angle greater than zero, said top shoulder and bottom shoulder defining a vertical plane comprising said longitudinal axis, and said shoulders defining a height higher than a height of said shank (see annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, in (BLANCHARD), the “drill bit” further comprises a top proximal head extending distally from said top shoulder, said top proximal head extending higher than said shank height (see annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, in (BLANCHARD), the top proximal head extends distally to an elongated body.
Regarding claim 13, the “drill bit” of (BLANCHARD) further comprises a vertical distal bar (see annotated Fig. 2) with a height less that a height of the shank (1).
Regarding claim 17, the “drill bit” of (BLANCHARD) further comprises a bottom proximal head extending distally from a bottom shoulder, said bottom proximal head extending below than[sic] a shank lower limit (see annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, in (BLANCHARD), the top shoulder is set at ninety-degree angle from said neck (see annotated Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 1-4, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 03051580 A1 to (HALTORP).
Regarding claim 1, (HALTORP) discloses a “drill bit” with a proximal end comprising a shank (handle 3; Figs. 1-4) adapted to attach to a powered drive mechanism, and a distal end, a center of the shank defining a longitudinal axis as between said proximal and distal ends, said drill bit comprising: a. a neck extending distally from said shank (see annotated Figs. 1 and 2); b. a top shoulder depending from said neck, said top shoulder comprising an upper deviation from said longitudinal axis at an angle greater than zero (annotated Figs. 1 and 2); c. a bottom shoulder depending from said neck, said bottom shoulder comprising a lower deviation from said longitudinal axis at an angle greater than zero, said top shoulder and bottom shoulder defining a vertical plane comprising said longitudinal axis, and said shoulders defining a height higher than a height of said shank (see annotated Figs. 1 and 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
564
422
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the “drill bit” of (HALTORP) further comprises a top proximal head extending distally from said top shoulder, said top proximal head extending higher than said shank height.
Regarding claim 3, in (HALTORP), the top proximal head (7)(Fig. 3) extends distally to an elongated body.
Regarding claim 4, in (HALTORP), the elongated body achieves a maximal height and narrows distally from said maximal height towards a distal end of said drill bit.
Regarding claim 17, the “drill bit” of (HALTORP) further comprises a bottom proximal head (first hook 11; Fig. 3) extending distally from a bottom shoulder, said bottom proximal head extending below than[sic] a shank lower limit (see annotated Figs. 1 and 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-12 and 14-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if claims 5 and 14 are 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: regarding claim 5, that the elongated body extends in parallel with said longitudinal axis and provides a step-wise drop towards said distal end; and, regarding claim 14, that the elongated body extends at an arc from said longitudinal axis, together in combination with the rest of the limitations in the independent claim and any intervening claims, has neither been disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as disclosing numerous tools for rapidly installing and removing fasteners having a hook or an eye at its end.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David B. Thomas whose telephone number is (571) 272-4497. The examiner’s e-mail address is: dave.thomas@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 11:30-7:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached on (. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/David B. Thomas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DBT/