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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,022,845 B2 to (Neitzell).
PNG
media_image1.png
259
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Neitzell) discloses several embodiments of tool bits, and noting the embodiment of Fig. 3, (Neitzell) discloses a tool bit 10b for driving a fastener, the tool bit comprising: a shank 22b configured to be coupled to a tool (via hexagonal drive portion 14b); a tip configured 18b to engage the fastener; and a layer of cladding 42 disposed on an exterior of the tip 18b, the layer of cladding having a hardness that is greater than a hardness of the shank (Col. 3, lines 61-62); wherein the hardness of the layer of cladding 42 is greater than a hardness of underlying material from which the tip is formed (Col. 3, lines 63-65); wherein the tip includes a head portion and an intermediate portion extending from the head portion, and wherein the intermediate portion has an outer diameter that is less than a maximum outer dimension of the head portion (see annotated Fig. 3); wherein the layer of cladding 42 is also disposed on the intermediate portion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,868,047 A to (Faust et al.) in view of US 4,249,945 A to (Haswell et al.) and US 2006/0037431 A1 to (Bernhard et al.).
Regarding claims 1-3, (Faust et al.) provides a tool bit for driving a fastener, the tool bit (insert bits 10) comprising: a shank 20 including a tool coupling portion configured to be coupled to a tool, a head portion (40A-E), configured to engage the fastener, and an intermediate portion (midportion 30) disposed between the tool coupling portion 20 and the head portion (40A, 40B, 40D, 40E), the intermediate portion 30 having an outer diameter that is less than an outer dimension of the tool coupling portion, wherein the head portion is composed of tool steel 30 is selected such that the intermediate portion has a strength about 20% stronger than a shear strength of the head portion (Faust et al. teach that the intermediate portion, i.e., midportion 30, has a torque strength about 20% stronger than a torque strength of the head portion – Col. 2, lines 7-13).
Thus, (Faust et al.) provides the invention as claimed except that the intermediate portion has a torque strength about 20% stronger than a torque strength of the head portion rather than about 10%, and fails to provide that the head portion is composed of powdered metal (PM) steel having carbide particles distributed uniformly throughout the head portion.
However, regarding the differential in the shear strength, noting that: Torque is a twisting force that causes torsional shear stress within an object, such as a shaft. Shear stress is the internal force that resists this twisting, with the stress being zero at the center and maximum at the outer surface. The relationship is defined by the torsion formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
1
1
media_image2.png
Greyscale
τ=Tρ/J,
where - 𝜏 is shear stress, 𝑇 is the applied torque, 𝜌 is the radial distance from the center (diameter is equal to (2 x 𝜌) or (2 𝜌)), and 𝐽 is the polar moment of inertia.
Thus, a skilled artisan at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would have been able to calculate the desired ratio of the shear stress of the intermediate portion in relation to the head portion such that in constructing a tool bit, like that of (Faust et al.), such that the outer diameter (2 𝜌) of the intermediate portion (reduced diameter midportion 30) is selected such that the intermediate portion has a strength about 10% stronger than a shear strength of the head portion.
Regarding the material for the manufacture of the head portion, manufacturing tool steel via powder metallurgy is old and well-known. For example, (Haswell et al.) demonstrates manufacturing a “powder metallurgy article” that has been formed by a combination of heat and pressure into a coherent mass having a density, in final form, in excess of 99% of theoretical density; this includes intermediate products such as billets, blooms, rod and bar and the like, as well as final products such as tool steel articles including rolls, punches, dies, wear plates and the like (Col. 2, lines 52-60). (Haswell et al.) further provide that: “in the practice of the invention a prealloyed powder charge is obtained wherein each particle thereof has an alloy steel matrix with a uniform dispersion of MC-type vanadium carbides within the range of 10 to 18%, preferably 15 to 17% or 13.3 to 17.2% by volume. The carbides are of substantially spherical shape and are uniformly distributed.” (Col. 2, lines 63-68; Col. 3, lines 1-20)
(Bernhard et al.) teaches, inter alia, improving tools such as screwdriver bits that are produced from steel by utilizing a hard metal alloy to improve the wear resistance of the screwdriver bit and to improve the torsional strength (paragraphs [0009]- [0013]). (Bernhard et al.) teaches that “this is achieved by the use of a hard metal alloy substantially comprising tungsten carbide with a mean grain size of less than 1.2 µm and 13 to 23% by weight of binder metal, selected from one or more metals from the group consisting of cobalt, iron and nickel.”(para. [0010]); and, discusses providing the metal alloy substrate with tungsten carbides of up to approximately 10% by weight (para. [0012]); a hard metal alloy consisting of tungsten carbide with a mean grain size in the range from 0.7 to 0.9 µm and 13 to 17% by weight of cobalt binder (para. [0013]).
Therefore, in view of the known materials manufacturing/ metallurgical processes, such as those demonstrated in (Haswell et al.) and (Bernhard et al.), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the tool bit (screwdriver bit) of (Faust et al.) by producing the tool steel via powder metallurgy where the carbide particle concentration may be varied through routine experimentation, as demonstrated by (Haswell et al.), where the carbides are of substantially spherical shape and are uniformly distributed, and the carbide particle concentration is at least 6% by volume, as demonstrated by (Bernhard et al.), and wherein the outer diameter of the intermediate portion is selected such that the intermediate portion has a strength about 10% stronger than a shear strength of the head portion by utilizing the well-known torsion formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
1
1
media_image2.png
Greyscale
τ=Tρ/J to calculate the desired ratio of the shear stress of the intermediate portion in relation to the head portion.
Regarding claim 4, in modified (Faust et al.) the intermediate portion has a cylindrical shape.
Regarding claim 5, in modified (Faust et al.) the head portion, the intermediate portion, and the tool coupling portion are integral.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, modified (Faust et al.) provides the invention as claimed except for the addition of a second intermediate portion disposed between the tool coupling portion and the first intermediate portion; wherein the second intermediate portion has an outer diameter that is greater than the outer diameter of the first intermediate portion and less than the outer dimension of the tool coupling portion. However, as it appears from paragraphs [0031]-[0039) of the of the Applicant’s Specification that the number of intermediate portion(s), the diameter(s) of said intermediate portion(s), and the length(s) of said intermediate portion(s) are not critical to the functionality of said tool bits. Thus, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to include these features for the tool bit of modified (Faust et al.), as the applicant has not disclosed that having more than one intermediated portion, particular dimensions therefore, &etc., solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with only a singular intermediate portion.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, in modified (Faust et al.), (Faust et al.) provide in Col. 2, lines 13-17 that “…the midportion having a preselected length of from approximately 18 mm to 23.5 mm and the midportion having a preselected diameter of from approximately 3.55 mm to approximately 6.35 mm,…”, thus, providing an outer diameter of the intermediate portion that is between about 2.0 mm and about 5.0 mm when calculating the appropriate diameter (2 𝜌) such that the intermediate portion has a strength about 10% stronger than a shear strength of the head portion would have been obvious; and, adjusting or selecting an effective length for the intermediate portion between about 10 mm and about 26 mm would have been obvious.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified (Faust et al.) as applied to, inter alia, claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2014223711 A to (TOTSU).
Modified (Faust et al.) as applied to, inter alia, claim 1 above, provides a tool bit as claimed except for the addition of a nickel coating on the head portion of the shank.
(TOTSU) teaches, inter alia, providing nickel coating, i.e., nickel plating, to the surface of the distal end 14a portion of the tip blade portion 14 of the driver bit body 12 (see, e.g., Page 2 of the English translation, paragraphs 9 and 10). The goal of (TOTSU) is to provide a driver bit, which can improve a strength and an abrasion resistance of a tip edge part and can absorb an excessive torque or an impact extremely efficiently, has extremely excellent durability, and can be easily manufactured with a simple structure
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the modified (Faust et al.) by providing a nickel coating on the head portion of the shank as an obvious use of a known process having predictable results or effects, such as nickel plating as exemplified in (TOTSU), thus improving the durability of such a tool bit.
Claim(s) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,868,047 A to (Faust et al.) in view of US 4,121,927 A to (Lohman et al.).
Regarding claim 15, (Faust et al.) provides a tool bit and teaches treating formed bits 10 by treating to have a desired microstructure by either an austempering process or by the three step heating, quenching, tempering process. The bits 10 may also be electro-polished. Austempering provides for improved function and increased fatigue life and electro-polishing provides for improved function and increased fatigue life and torque capacity. (see ABSTRACT) However, (Faust et al.) fail to discuss the implementation of the process of austenitizing the tool bit, or the steps of preheating the tool bit at a first temperature; preheating the tool bit at a second temperature that is greater than the first temperature; austenitizing the tool bit, after preheating the tool bit, at a third temperature that is greater than the second temperature; and tempering the tool bit, after austenitizing the tool bit, at a fourth temperature that is less than the third temperature.
(Lohman et a.) provides a method for making high carbon hard alloys by the use of powder metallurgy techniques and, in certain embodiments thereof of forming a heat or quench hardenable steel (Col. 1, lines 10-13), in one embodiment of the invention, the method is directed to the formation of a high carbon, heat hardenable steel (Col. 1, lines 50-52). (Lohman et al.) teach forming a blend of powder metal and carbon containing at least sufficient carbon to produce a compacted product having the desired tool steel analysis (Col. 3, lines 8-11). (Lohman et al.) further teach: in (Col. 3, lines 28-48) “the compacts… are intended for use as a tool… for as example… tool bit”
PNG
media_image3.png
272
302
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
600
332
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and, in Example No. 1: provide the steps of, e.g., preheating the tool bit at a first temperature; preheating the tool bit at a second temperature that is greater than the first temperature; austenitizing the tool bit, after preheating the tool bit, at a third temperature that is greater than the second temperature; and tempering the tool bit, after austenitizing the tool bit, at a fourth temperature that is less than the third temperature.
(Lohman et al) go on to further describe various examples of forming a compacted blend of metal powder and carbon where different blends are experimented with and various heating, sintering, preheating, forging, annealing, austenitizing, quenching and tempering are conducted (see whole document).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the forming of the tool bit of (Faust et al) by utilizing a known method for manufacturing a tool bit, such as the processes exemplified by (Lohman et a.), and having the predictable result of producing a wear resistant tool bit that is made from tool steel manufactured by a powdered metal process that has the capacity to produce a level of hardness of about Rc 47(HRC 47) to Rc 53 (HRC 53) and up to about Rc 65 (HRC 65).
Regarding claim 16, in the method of manufacturing a tool bit of (Faust et al.) in view of (Lohman et al.), (Lohman et al) demonstrate that austenitizing is conducted in the temperatures of 2225o F (see Example No. 4) and 2250o F (Example No. 1). Although these temperatures are slightly higher than between about 1975o F and about 2025o F, it would have been within routine skill of an artisan to experiment with temperatures within this range in order to produce the desired results.
Regarding claim 17, in the method of manufacturing a tool bit of (Faust et al.) in view of (Lohman et al.), (Lohman et al) perform the step of austenitizing for about 4 minutes (See Example No. 1 and Example No. 4).
Regarding claim 18, in the method of manufacturing a tool bit of (Faust et al.) in view of (Lohman et al.), (Lohman et al) perform the step of tempering at 1025o F, thus tempering at a temperature between about 1000 degrees Fahrenheit and about 1050 degrees Fahrenheit.
Regarding claim 19, in the method of manufacturing a tool bit of (Faust et al.) in view of (Lohman et al.), (Lohman et al) perform the step of tempering for 2 hours in each example, thus tempering for between about 1 hour and about 3 hours.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the method of manufacturing a tool bit of (Faust et al.) in view of (Lohman et al.) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US 2015/0068647 A1 to (JOHANSSON et al.), US 9,481,023 B2 to (Shepard et al.), and US 2017/0151609 A1 to (ELSEN et al.)
The method of manufacturing a tool bit of (Faust et al.) in view of (Lohman et al.) as applied to claim 15 above, provides the steps as claimed except for explicitly teaching that the step of tempering the tool bit two time occurs in a vacuum.
However, (JOHANSSON et al.), (Shepard et al.), and (ELSEN et al.), respectively teach conducting the tempering steps of a powdered metal steel in a vacuum furnace, wherein, (Shepard et al.) teach tempering three times in a vacuum furnace (Col. 18, lines 12-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of manufacturing a tool bit of (Faust et al.) in view of (Lohman et al.) as applied to claim 15 above, by conducting the tempering steps in a vacuum furnace, as taught by (JOHANSSON et al.), (Shepard et al.), and (ELSEN et al.), respectively, and performing the tempering two times as suggested by (Shepard et al.), as being an obvious implementation of known processing step(s).
Conclusion
The remaining prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as disclosing or describing features related to the present application.
Upon consideration of the prior art applied above, the claimed invention lacks both novelty (claims 11-14) and an inventive step (claims 1-10 and 15-20).
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 (313) 446-6546. 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/