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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/16/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 1/16/26 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5, and 8 have been amended. Claims 13-30 have been added. Claims 1-30 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because “an entire length” in line 2 should be --an entirety of the length--.
Claim 30 is objected to because “an entire length” in line 2 should be --an entirety of the length--.
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 13-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticiapted by Pigott (U.S. 2,822,676).
PNG
media_image1.png
443
795
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
380
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
600
542
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re claim 13:
Pigott discloses a clutch (Figs. 1-4), comprising:
a one-piece unit (Modified Fig. 1 above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element A as a type of one-piece unit; element A corresponds to the “collet member, of unitary tubular construction” referenced at Col. 2, Lines 42-45)) having a length (Modified Fig. 4 above - B (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element B as a type of length of element A of Modified Fig. 1 above)), an outside diameter (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - C (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element C as a type of outside diameter of element A of Modified Fig. 1 above)), and an inside diameter (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - D (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element D as a type of inside diameter of element A of Modified Fig. 1 above)) where at least a portion (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - E (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element E as a type of portion of element D; element E corresponds to the depicted radius between elements 17)) of the inside diameter (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - D) is sized to create a frictional interface (see Figs. 1-4 and Col. 3, Line 61 - Col. 4, Line 7);
a bore (15, bore - Col. 2, Line 43) through the one-piece unit (Modified Fig. 1 above - A)(see Figs. 1-3), where the bore includes a longitudinal central axis (Modified Fig. 1 above - K (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element K as a type of longitudinal central axis through element 15)) there-through (see Modified Fig. 1 above);
the bore (15) including at least one groove (Modified Figs. 2-4 above - I (person having ordinary skill I the art would recognize element I as a type of groove)) extending an entirety of the length (Modified Fig. 4 above - B) of the one-piece unit (Modified Fig. 1 above - A)(see Modified Fig. 4 above); and
a spiral cut (Modified Fig. 4 above - F (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element F as a type of spiral cut; element F corresponds to an element 17 which is a helical slot per Col. 2, Line 52))) in at least a portion of the outside diameter (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - C) of the one-piece unit (Modified Fig. 1 above - A)(see Modified Figs. 1-4 above and Col. 2, Line 52 - Col. 3, Line 13).
Re claim 14:
Pigott discloses the clutch (Figs. 1-4) of claim 13 (as described above), wherein the spiral cut (Modified Fig. 4 above - F) extends from the outside diameter (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - C) to the inside diameter (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - D) of the one-piece unit (Modified Fig. 1 above - A)(see Modified Figs. 1-4 above).
Re claim 15:
Pigott discloses the clutch (Figs. 1-4) of claim 14 (as described above), wherein the spiral cut (Modified Fig. 4 above - F) begins on a top surface (Modified Fig. 4 above - G (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element G as a type of top surface of element A of Modified Fig. 1 above)) of the one-piece unit (Modified Fig. 1 above - A) and ends on a bottom surface (Modified Fig. 4 above - H (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element H as a type of bottom surface of element A of Modified Fig. 1 above)) of the one-piece unit (Modified Fig. 1 above - A)(see Modified Figs. 1-4 above).
Re claim 16:
Pigott discloses the clutch (Figs. 1-4) of claim 15 (as described above), wherein the inside diameter (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - D) is shaped so an entirety of the inside diameter (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - D) does not create the frictional interface (see Figs. 1-4, and Modified Fig. 4 above (element D of Modified Fig. 4 corresponds to the entire depicted inside diameter, and this inside diameter includes the voids at element 17 which necessarily cannot create the frictional interface required for performing the gripping described at Col. 3, Line 61 - Col. 4, Line 7)).
Re claim 17:
Pigott discloses the clutch (Figs. 1-4) of claim 16 (as described above), wherein the inside diameter (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - D) includes an undulating surface (see Modified Figs. 2-3 above at D (a type of undulating surface is shown as the inside diameter at element D is shown rising and falling as it crosses elements 17)) so the entirety of the inside diameter (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - D) does not create the frictional interface (see Figs. 1-4, and Modified Fig. 4 above (element D of Modified Fig. 4 corresponds to the entire depicted inside diameter, and this inside diameter includes the voids at element 17, which are what create the rising and falling surface, and these voids necessarily cannot create the frictional interface required for performing the gripping described at Col. 3, Line 61 - Col. 4, Line 7)).
Re claim 18:
Pigott discloses the clutch (Figs. 1-4) of claim 17 (as described above), wherein the inside diameter (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - D) includes at least two grooves (Modified Figs. 2-4 above - I, J (person having ordinary skill I the art would recognize elements I and J as a type of two grooves))(see Modified Figs. 2-4 above).
Re claim 19:
Pigott discloses the clutch (Figs. 1-4) of claim 18 (as described above), wherein the inside diameter (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - D) includes a surface (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - K (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element K as a type of surface between elements J and K)) between the at least two grooves (Modified Figs. 2-4 above - I, J) for creating at least a portion of the frictional interface (see Figs. 1-4 and Col. 3, Line 61 - Col. 4, Line 7).
Re claim 20:
Pigott discloses the clutch (Figs. 1-4) of claim 19 (as described above), wherein the surface (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - K) between the at least two grooves (Modified Figs. 2-4 above - I, J) has a radial curvature substantially equal to a radius of the frictional interface (see Modified Figs. 2-3 above at element K and Col. 3, Line 61 - Col. 4, Line 7).
Re claim 21:
Pigott discloses a clutch (Figs. 1-4)), comprising:
a one-piece unit (Modified Fig. 1 above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element A as a type of one-piece unit; element A corresponds to the “collet member, of unitary tubular construction” referenced at Col. 2, Lines 42-45)) having a length (Modified Fig. 4 above - B (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element B as a type of length of element A of Modified Fig. 1 above)), an outside diameter (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - C (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element C as a type of outside diameter of element A of Modified Fig. 1 above)), and an inside diameter (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - D (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element D as a type of inside diameter of element A of Modified Fig. 1 above)) where at least a portion (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - E (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element E as a type of portion of element D; element E corresponds to the depicted radius between elements 17)) of the inside diameter (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - D) is sized to create a frictional interface (see Figs. 1-4 and Col. 3, Line 61 - Col. 4, Line 7); and
a spiral cut (Modified Fig. 4 above - F (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element F as a type of spiral cut; element F corresponds to an element 17 which is a helical slot per Col. 2, Line 52)) in at least a portion of the outside diameter (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - C) of the one-piece unit (Modified Fig. 1 above - A)(see Modified Figs. 1-4 above and Col. 2, Line 52 - Col. 3, Line 13).
Re claim 22:
Pigott discloses the clutch (Figs. 1-4) of claim 21 (as described above), wherein the spiral cut (Modified Fig. 4 above - F) extends from the outside diameter (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - C) to the inside diameter (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - D) of the one-piece unit (Modified Fig. 1 above - A)(see Modified Figs. 1-4 above).
Re claim 23:
Pigott discloses the clutch (Figs. 1-4) of claim 22 (as described above), wherein the spiral cut (Modified Fig. 4 above - F) begins on a top surface (Modified Fig. 4 above - G (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element G as a type of top surface of element A of Modified Fig. 1 above)) of the one-piece unit (Modified Fig. 1 above - A) and ends on a bottom surface (Modified Fig. 4 above - H (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element H as a type of bottom surface of element A of Modified Fig. 1 above)) of the one-piece unit (Modified Fig. 1 above - A)(see Modified Figs. 1-4 above).
Re claim 24:
Pigott discloses the clutch (Figs. 1-4) of claim 23 (as described above), wherein the inside diameter (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - D) is shaped so an entirety of the inside diameter (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - D) does not create the frictional interface (see Figs. 1-4, and Modified Fig. 4 above (element D of Modified Fig. 4 corresponds to the entire depicted inside diameter, and this inside diameter includes the voids at element 17 which necessarily cannot create the frictional interface required for performing the gripping described at Col. 3, Line 61 - Col. 4, Line 7)).
Re claim 25:
Pigott discloses the clutch (Figs. 1-4) of claim 24 (as described above), wherein the inside diameter (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - D) includes an undulating surface (see Modified Figs. 2-3 above at D (a type of undulating surface is shown as the inside diameter at element D is shown rising and falling as it crosses elements 17)) so the entirety of the inside diameter (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - D) does not create the frictional interface (see Figs. 1-4, and Modified Fig. 4 above (element D of Modified Fig. 4 corresponds to the entire depicted inside diameter, and this inside diameter includes the voids at element 17, which are what create the rising and falling surface, and these voids necessarily cannot create the frictional interface required for performing the gripping described at Col. 3, Line 61 - Col. 4, Line 7)).
Re claim 26:
Pigott discloses the clutch (Figs. 1-4) of claim 25 (as described above), wherein the inside diameter (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - D) includes at least one groove (Modified Figs. 2-4 above - I (person having ordinary skill I the art would recognize element I as a type of groove))(see Modified Figs. 2-4 above).
Re claim 27:
Pigott discloses the clutch (Figs. 1-4) of claim 26 (as described above), wherein the inside diameter (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - D) includes at least two grooves (Modified Figs. 2-4 above - I, J (person having ordinary skill I the art would recognize elements I and J as a type of two grooves))(see Modified Figs. 2-4 above).
Re claim 28:
Pigott discloses the clutch (Figs. 1-4) of claim 27 (as described above), wherein the inside diameter (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - D) includes a surface (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - K (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element K as a type of surface between elements J and K)) between the at least two grooves (Modified Figs. 2-4 above - I, J) for creating at least a portion of the frictional interface (see Figs. 1-4 and Col. 3, Line 61 - Col. 4, Line 7).
Re claim 29:
Pigott discloses the clutch (Figs. 1-4) of claim 28 (as described above), wherein the surface (Modified Figs. 2-3 above - K) between the at least two grooves (Modified Figs. 2-4 above - I, J) has a radial curvature substantially equal to a radius of the frictional interface (see Modified Figs. 2-3 above at element K and Col. 3, Line 61 - Col. 4, Line 7).
Re claim 30:
Pigott discloses the clutch (Figs. 1-4) of claim 29 (as described above), wherein at least one of the grooves (Modified Figs. 2-4 above - I, J) extends along an entire length (Modified Fig. 4 above - B (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element B as a type of entire length of element A identified in Modified Fig. 1 above)) of the one-piece unit (Modified Fig. 1 above - A)(see Modified Fig .4 above).
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.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd (U.S. 2016/0010436) in view of Bookheimer et al. (U.S. 2018/0347701).
PNG
media_image4.png
620
767
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Re claim 1:
Boyd discloses a clutch (20, clutch assembly - Para 49) for a dart plunger (10, bypass plunger - Para 42)(see Figs. 1-3), comprising:
a one-piece unit (60, collet - Para 50) having a length (Modified Fig. 5 above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element A as a type of length of element 60)), an outside diameter (Modified Fig. 5 above - B (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element B as a type of outside diameter; element B corresponds to the “outside diameter” of element 60 referenced in Para 50)), and an inside diameter (Modified Fig. 5 above - C (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element C as a type of inside diameter; element C corresponds to the “inside diameter” of element 60 referenced in Para 50)) where at least a portion of the inside diameter is sized to create a frictional interface with a dart (14, pushrod - Para 42 (see Fis. 1-3)); and
a
Boyd fails to disclose a spiral cut.
Bookheimer teaches a clutch (10’, collet - Para 33), which is analogous art to the claimed invention as it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of the instant application because the clutch of the claimed invention is a “collet clutch…to create a frictional interface” (Para 51 of instant application) while Pigott also teaches a collet (10’) to create a frictional interface (see Figs. 2, 9, Paras, 2, 24, and 33) and because of the structural similarities between the claimed invention and Bookheimer (compare structural similarities between Figs. 2 and 8-9 of Bookheimer to those of Figs. 13 and 15 of instant disclosure).
Bookheimer teaches a clutch (10’, collet - Para 33 with a spiral cut (see Fig. 9 at 36a-c and Para 33 - “…slots 36…are substantially helically disposed about the rotational axis…”)(see Figs. 2, and 8-9) .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the cut of Boyd after that of Bookheimer, thereby making the cut of Boyd a spiral cut in the way taught by Bookheimer, for the advantage of allowing for a greater range of collapse (Bookheimer; Para 33 - “…This helical arrangement allows a greater range of collapse with the same slot width, as compared to the earlier embodiment with substantially straight slots…”).
PNG
media_image5.png
367
447
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2:
Boyd/Bookheimer teaches the clutch (Boyd; 20) of claim 1 (as described above).
Boyd further discloses wherein the
Boyd fails to disclose wherein the spiral cut extends from the outside diameter to the inside diameter.
Bookheimer teaches wherein a spiral cut (see Fig. 9 at 36a-c) extends from an outside diameter (Modified Fig. 10 above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element A as a type of outside diameter)) to an inside diameter (Modified Fig. 10 above - B (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element B as a type of inside diameter))(see Modified Fig. 10 above and Figs. 8-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the cut of Boyd after that of Bookheimer, thereby making the cut of Boyd a spiral cut in the way taught by Bookheimer, for the advantage of allowing for a greater range of collapse (Bookheimer; Para 33 - “…This helical arrangement allows a greater range of collapse with the same slot width, as compared to the earlier embodiment with substantially straight slots…”).
Re claim 3:
Boyd/Bookheimer teaches the clutch (Boyd; 20) of claim 2 (as described above).
Boyd further discloses wherein the
Boyd fails to disclose a spiral cut.
Bookheimer teaches a clutch (10’, collet - Para 33 with a spiral cut (see Fig. 9 at 36a-c and Para 33 - “…slots 36…are substantially helically disposed about the rotational axis…”)(see Figs. 2, and 8-9) .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the cut of Boyd after that of Bookheimer, thereby making the cut of Boyd a spiral cut in the way taught by Bookheimer, for the advantage of allowing for a greater range of collapse (Bookheimer; Para 33 - “…This helical arrangement allows a greater range of collapse with the same slot width, as compared to the earlier embodiment with substantially straight slots…”).
Re claim 4:
Boyd/Bookheimer teaches the clutch (Boyd; 20) of claim 3 (as described above).
Boyd further discloses wherein the inside diameter (Modified Fig. 5 above - C) is shaped (see Modified Fig. 5 above at C, 68, and Para 51) so an entirety of the inside diameter does not create the same frictional interface with a dart (14)(see Modified Fig. 5 above and Para 51 - “…surface finish of the inside bore 68 may be provided by circumferential grooves, knurling, etching, or threads as is well understood in the art…” (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize described surface finishes would result in structure capable of performing the claimed function)).
Re claim 5:
Boyd/Bookheimer teaches the clutch (Boyd; 20) of claim 4 (as described above).
Boyd further discloses wherein the inside diameter (Modified Fig. 5 above - C) includes an undulating surface (see Modified Fig. 5 above at C, 68, and Para 51 - “…surface finish of the inside bore 68 may be provided by circumferential grooves, knurling, etching, or threads as is well understood in the art…”) so the entirety of the inside diameter does not create the frictional interface with a dart (14)(see Modified Fig. 5 above and Para 51 - “…surface finish of the inside bore 68 may be provided by circumferential grooves, knurling, etching, or threads as is well understood in the art…” (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize described surface finishes would result in structure capable of performing the claimed function)).
Re claim 6:
Boyd/Bookheimer teaches the clutch (Boyd; 20) of claim 5 (as described above).
Boyd further discloses wherein the inside diameter (Modified Fig. 5 above - C) includes at least one groove (see Modified Fig. 5 above at C, 68, and Para 51 - “…surface finish of the inside bore 68 may be provided by circumferential grooves, knurling, etching, or threads as is well understood in the art…”).
Re claim 7:
Boyd/Bookheimer teaches the clutch (Boyd; 20) of claim 6 (as described above).
Boyd further discloses wherein the inside diameter includes at least two grooves (see Modified Fig. 5 above at C, 68, and Para 51 - “…surface finish of the inside bore 68 may be provided by circumferential grooves, knurling, etching, or threads as is well understood in the art…”).
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd (U.S. 2016/0010436) in view of Bookheimer et al. (U.S. 2018/0347701), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Jefferies et al. (U.S. 2014/0116714).
Re claim 8:
Boyd/Bookheimer teaches the clutch (Boyd; 20) of claim 7 (as described above).
Boyd further discloses wherein the inside diameter (Modified Fig. 5 above - C) includes a surface between the at least two grooves (see Modified Fig. 5 above at C, 68, and Para 51 - “…surface finish of the inside bore 68 may be provided by circumferential grooves, knurling, etching, or threads as is well understood in the art…” (for two grooves to exist necessarily requires there to be a surface between the grooves to thereby distinguish the two grooves from each other)).
Boyd fails to disclose a surface between the at least two grooves for creating at least a portion of the frictional interface with the dart in the dart plunger.
Jefferies teaches a surface (Para 42 - “…inner surface of the split bobbin 72…”) between at least two grooves (80, series of grooves - Para 42) for creating at least a portion of a frictional interface with a dart (102, valve stem - Para 30) in a dart plunger (10, rotary bypass plunger - Para 29)(see Figs. 1-2, 5, 7, and Paras 41-42).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the surface of Boyd/Bookheimer after that of Jefferies, thereby making the surface of Boyd be for creating at least a portion of the frictional interface with the dart in the dart plunger of Boyd in the way taught by Jefferies, for the advantage of being able to provide passages for fluid to flush particles of sand away from the contact area (Jefferies; Para 42).
Re claim 9:
Boyd/Bookheimer/Jefferies teaches the clutch (Boyd; 20) of claim 8 (as described above).
Boyd further discloses wherein the inside diameter (Modified Fig. 5 above - C) includes a surface between the at least two grooves (see Modified Fig. 5 above at C, 68, and Para 51 - “…surface finish of the inside bore 68 may be provided by circumferential grooves, knurling, etching, or threads as is well understood in the art…” (for two grooves to exist necessarily requires there to be a surface between the grooves to thereby distinguish the two grooves from each other))
Boyd fails to disclose wherein the surface between the at least two grooves has a radial curvature substantially equal to a radius of the dart in the dart plunger.
Jefferies teaches wherein a surface (Para 42 - “…inner surface of the split bobbin 72…”) between at least two grooves (80, series of grooves - Para 42) has a radial curvature substantially equal to a radius of a dart (102) in the dart plunger (10)(see Figs. 1-2, 5, 7, and Paras 41-42).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the surface of Boyd/Bookheimer after that of Jefferies, thereby making the surface of Boyd have a radial curvature substantially equal to a radius of the dart in the dart plunger of Boyd in the way taught by Jefferies, for the advantage of being able to provide passages for fluid to flush particles of sand away from the contact area (Jefferies; Para 42).
Re claim 10:
Boyd/Bookheimer/Jefferies teaches the clutch (Boyd; 20) of claim 9 (as described above).
Boyd fails to disclose wherein at least one of the grooves extends along an entire length of the one-piece unit.
Jefferies teaches wherein at least one of the grooves (80) extends along an entire length of the one-piece unit (72B)(see Fig. 5 and Para 42)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the grooves of Boyd after those of Jefferies, thereby making the grooves of Boyd extends along the entire length of the one-piece unit of Boyd in the way taught by Jefferies, for the advantage of being able to provide passages for fluid to flush particles of sand away from the contact area (Jefferies; Para 42).
Re claim 11:
Boyd/Bookheimer/Jefferies teaches the clutch (Boyd; 20) of claim 10 (as described above).
Boyd further discloses wherein the outside diameter (Modified Fig. 5 above - B) is less than an inside diameter of the dart plunger (10)(see Figs. 5-6 and Para 50 - “…The outside diameter of the clutch plus a clearance dimension is equal to the inside diameter of the headpiece 16…”).
Re claim 12:
Boyd/Bookheimer/Jefferies teaches the clutch (Boyd; 20) of claim 11 (as described above).
Boyd further discloses wherein the outside diameter (Modified Fig. 5 above - B) is less than an inside diameter of a nut (18, tail piece - Para 42) for the dart plunger (10)(see Figs. 2-3, 5-6, Para 50 and Para 42 - “…A clutch assembly 20 may be disposed within the head piece 16 (or the tail piece 18) when the plunger 10 is assembled…”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loren C Edwards whose telephone number is (571)272-7133. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6AM-430PM.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/LOREN C EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 2/27/26