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.
Claims 1-8 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 7-8 recites the limitation "the temperature". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, 7 and 8 recites the limitation "the conical shape of the spindle” and “the conical shape of the containment hole". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims are also rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the temperature" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brunnert et al. (US 6,170,576).
With regards to claim 1, Brunnert et al. discloses a system (10) comprising: a support and containment structure (12, 147, 152) having an outside and an inside and provided with a containment hole (25, 146, 151, 156) extending from the outside of the support and containment structure to the inside of the support and containment structure (figure 1a-1m and figure 14-17); and a spindle (26, figure 1H; 145, 148, 150, 155 figures 14-17) designed to be inserted in the containment hole; wherein the containment hole is elongated and has a first end oriented towards the outside of the support and containment structure having a first diameter and a second, opposite end oriented towards the inside the support and containment structure having a second diameter; wherein the spindle is elongated and has a first end oriented towards the outside of the support and containment structure having a third diameter, and a second, opposite end oriented towards the inside of the support and containment structure having a fourth diameter; wherein the first diameter and the third diameter are substantially identical; wherein the second diameter and the fourth diameter are substantially identical; wherein the first diameter is smaller than the second diameter and the third diameter is smaller than the fourth diameter; whereby the spindle is not allowed to be extracted from the containment hole, but does not apply significant radial loads since the conical shape of the spindle and the conical shape of the containment hole are coupled but not in interference (figures 14-17).
With regards to claim 7, Brunnert et al. discloses a method for manufacturing a system (figure 1), comprising: a support and containment structure (147, 152), having an outside and an inside and provided with a containment hole extending from the outside of the support and containment structure to the inside of the support and containment structure; and a spindle (145, 148, 150, 155) designed to be inserted in the containment hole; wherein the containment hole is elongated and has a first end oriented towards the outside of the support and containment structure having a first diameter, and a second, opposite end oriented towards the inside the support and containment structure having a second diameter; wherein the spindle is elongated and has a first end oriented towards the outside of the support and containment structure having a third diameter, and a second, opposite end oriented towards the inside of the support and containment structure having a fourth diameter (figure 14-17); wherein the first diameter and the third diameter are substantially identical; wherein the second diameter and the fourth diameter are substantially identical; wherein the first diameter is smaller than the second diameter and the third diameter is smaller than the fourth diameter; said method comprising: raising the temperature of the support and containment structure, thus dilating the containment hole until the first diameter becomes greater than the fourth diameter; inserting the spindle inside the containment hole; making the temperature of the support and containment structure uniform with the spindle realizing the return to the original dimensions where the fourth diameter is greater than the first diameter; whereby the spindle is not allowed to be extracted from the containment hole, but does not apply significant radial loads since the conical shape of the spindle and the conical shape of the containment hole are coupled but not in interference (col. 6, lines 38-45; “heat-shrink fit”; figures 14-17).
With regards to claim 8, Brunnert et al. discloses a method for manufacturing a system (figure 1), comprising: a support and containment structure (147, 152), having an outside and an inside and provided with a containment hole extending from the outside of the support and containment structure to the inside of the support and containment structure; and a spindle (145, 148, 150, 155) designed to be inserted in the containment hole; wherein the containment hole is elongated and has a first end oriented towards the outside of the support and containment structure having a first diameter, and a second, opposite end oriented towards the inside the support and containment structure having a second diameter; wherein the spindle is elongated and has a first end oriented towards the outside of the support and containment structure having a third diameter, and a second, opposite end oriented towards the inside of the support and containment structure having a fourth diameter (figure 14-17); wherein the first diameter and the third diameter are substantially identical; wherein the second diameter and the fourth diameter are substantially identical; wherein the first diameter is smaller than the second diameter and the third diameter is smaller than the fourth diameter; said method comprising: lowering the temperature of the spindle, thus shrinking the spindle until the fourth diameter becomes smaller than the first diameter, inserting the spindle inside the containment hole; making the temperature of the spindle uniform with the support and containment structure realizing the return to the original dimensions where the fourth diameter is greater than the first diameter; whereby the spindle is not allowed to be extracted from the containment hole, but does not apply significant radial loads since the conical shape of the spindle and the conical shape of the containment hole are coupled but not in interference (col. 3, lines 18-23; col. 6, lines 38-45; figures 14-17).
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) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunnert et al. (US 6,170,576) in view of Sollami (US 10,995,614).
As to claim 4-6, Brunnert et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Brunnert et al. is silent about wherein the spindle is made of tungsten alloy with a hardness higher than 60 HRC and resistance to temperatures up to 500 ºC; and wherein the support and containment structure is made of steel. Sollami teaches a spindle and a support and containment structure can be made of tungsten alloy and/or steel resistance to temperatures up to 500 ºC (col. 12, lines 31-65). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the spindle and support and containment structure material of Brunnert for the materials as taught in Sollami, since it would provide know materials such as steel and tungsten carbide to increase the in-service life of the bit and holders. Eventhough, Brunnert as modified above is silent about the tungsten alloy with a hardness higher than 60HRC, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to choose known tungsten alloy with a hardness as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARIB A OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-7411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm.
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.
/CARIB A OQUENDO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678