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 7, 8, 9, 10-29 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.
Claims 7, 8, and 9 recites the limitation "the main body" in line 2 of each. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the term will be read to refer to the disc body.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "each one of the pair of mating interfaces" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the term will be read to refer to coupling interfaces
Claims 11-19 inherit the above issue.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the protrusions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 only recites a single protrusion.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Sousa et al. (US 20170342830) in view of Amoroso (US 4068897).
CLAIM 1: de Sousa discloses a cutting device for engaging a rock face. The cutting device comprises a disc body (94) supported for rotation about an axis of rotation (see Fig. 3). A plurality of receiving portions (114) are disposed circumferentially about an outer perimeter of the disc body (Fig. 6), each of the receiving portions including a receiving surface (118) and a plurality of carrier openings (122) extending through the receiving surface. A plurality of cutting members (102), each of the cutting members including a peripheral edge (Fig. 7A) and a plurality of cutting bits (162) positioned on the peripheral edge (Fig. 8).
De Sousa fails to disclose each of the cutting members further including a plurality of posts, each of the plurality of posts engaging an associated one of the plurality of carrier openings to releasably secure the cutting member against rotation relative to the receiving portion. Instead de Sousa discloses a single post (134) to engage a single carrier opening to releasably secure the cutting member against rotation relative to the receiving portion.
Amoroso discloses a cutting bit holder assembly.
Amoroso discloses cutting members (18) secured to the body (16) with a plurality of bolts (62).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of de Sousa to have a plurality of securing posts as taught in Amoroso with a reasonable expectation of success as Amoroso teaches the multiple points helps resist the uplift caused by the operation of the machine (see col. 3, lines 33-42).
CLAIM 2: The cutting bits of each one of the cutting members are aligned with cutting bits of each adjacent cutting member (see de Sousa, Fig. 5).
CLAIM 3: Each one of the cutting members includes a wedge slot (142). The slot would be capable of satisfying the functional language of wherein inserting a wedge tool into the wedge slot applies leverage to facilitate removal of the cutting member from the disc body.
CLAIM 4: de Sousa discloses a plurality of first openings (132), each of the first openings extending between a base of an associated one of the carrier openings and a surface of the disc body.
CLAIM 5: de Sousa discloses a jacking bolt insertable into one of the first openings to urge one of the cutting members to separate from an associated one of the receiving portions (see paragraphs 0040-41 discussing various means of securing and removing the members; specifically teaches a bolted connection which would cover jacking bolts).
CLAIM 10: de Sousa discloses a cutting device for engaging a rock face. The cutting device comprises: a disc body (94) supported for rotation about an axis of rotation. The disc body includes an outer perimeter and a plurality of receiving portions (114) positioned along the outer perimeter (see Fig. 3). A plurality of cutting members (102), each cutting member including a peripheral edge and a plurality of cutting bits (162) positioned on the peripheral edge (Fig. 8). Each of the cutting members releasably secured to an associated one of the receiving portions of the disc body (see Fig. 5). A coupling interface includes a protrusion (134) positioned on one of the cutting member and the associated receiving portion and a carrier opening (122) positioned on the other of the cutting member and the associated receiving portion, the carrier opening receiving the protrusion.
de Sousa fails to disclose a pair of coupling interfaces between each one of the receiving portions and an associated one of the cutting members.
Amoroso discloses cutting members (18) secured to the body (16) with a plurality of bolts (62).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of de Sousa to have a plurality of securing posts as taught in Amoroso with a reasonable expectation of success as Amoroso teaches the multiple points helps resist the uplift caused by the operation of the machine (see col. 3, lines 33-42).
CLAIM 11: de Sousa discloses wherein each one of the pair of mating interfaces includes the protrusion positioned on the cutting member and the carrier opening positioned on the receiving portion (see Figures), such that each cutting member includes a pair of protrusions and each receiving portion includes a pair of carrier openings (see above).
CLAIM 12: de Sousa discloses a first locking pin hole positioned on the cutting member, the first locking pin hole extending between a mating surface that engages the receiving portion and an external surface of the cutting member; a second locking pin hole positioned on the receiving portion, the second locking pin hole extending between the receiving portion and a second surface of the disc body and aligned with the first locking pin hole; and a locking pin extending through the first locking pin hole and the second locking pin hole, the locking pin releasably securing the cutting member with respect to the disc body (see paragraphs 0040-41 discussing pin fasteners).
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have two locking pins as the duplication of parts in which both parts are serving the same function and redundancy would result in a more secure connection.
CLAIM 13: de Sousa discloses a hydraulic port positioned on the cutting member; and a piston positioned adjacent a lower surface of the carrier opening, the piston in fluid communication with the hydraulic port (see paragraphs 00440-41 discussing connections, disclosing hydraulic clamping which would read on the claim).
CLAIM 14: de Sousa discloses a receiving space positioned between adjacent carrier openings; and a tapered lock clamp positioned between adjacent protrusions, the tapered lock clamp positioned in the receiving space, wherein the tapered lock clamp has a first slanted surface engaging one of the protrusions and a second slanted surface positioned opposite the first slanted surface and engaging the other protrusion (see paragraphs 0040-41 discussing connection, clamping disclosed and slanted surfaces taught in the Figures, such as Fig. 7B).
CLAIM 15: de Sousa discloses a tapered lock clamp fastener hole extending through the tapered lock clamp; a second opening extending between a second surface of the disc body and the receiving space; and a fastener extending through the second opening and the tapered lock clamp fastener hole, thereby releasably securing the cutting member with respect to the disc body (see paragraphs 0040-41 discussing connection, openings disclosed in Fig. 11).
CLAIM 16: de Sousa discloses two reaction zones positioned along the protrusions and circumscribing a perimeter of the protrusion; and a recessed region positioned on each protrusions between the two reaction zones (see Fig. 7B showing groove around the protrusion).
CLAIM 17: The reaction zones are defined by a first diameter, and the recessed region is defined by a second diameter, and wherein the second diameter is smaller than the first diameter (see Fig. 7B; diameters shown with grooves).
CLAIM 18: A first reaction zone of the two reaction zones has a first diameter, wherein a second reaction zone of the two reaction zones has a second diameter, and wherein the first diameter is larger than the second diameter (see Fig. 7B, showing groove at base and tip; zones can be defined as needed).
CLAIM 19: The first reaction zone is positioned closer to the mating surface of the cutting member that engages the receiving portion than the second reaction zone (see de Sousa, Fig. 7B).
CLAIM 20: These elements are discussed above.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Sousa in view of Amoroso in further view of Hanson (US 4871213).
CLAIM 6: de Sousa-Amoroso discloses the elements of 4 as discussed above.
The combination fails to disclose each post includes a stub shaft received by one of the first openings when the post is positioned in the carrier opening.
Hanson discloses an excavating apparatus.
Hanson discloses using stub shafts (23) to secure cutting elements to the central body.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection post of the Combination to include a stub shaft as taught in Hanson with a reasonable expectation of success as the substitution of one known connection means for another as Hanson teaches it is a manner of securing on a rotating mechanism.
CLAIM 7: de Sousa discloses a second opening extending between a second surface of the main body and the first opening; a set screw positioned in the second opening and engaging a portion of the stub shaft within the first opening, thereby releasably securing the cutting member with respect to the disc body (see Fig. 11, set screw of 182).
CLAIM 8: de Sousa discloses a second opening extending between a second surface of the main body and the first opening; a third opening extending through the stub shaft and aligned with the second opening; and a retaining pin extending through the second opening and the third opening, the retaining pin inhibiting movement of the cutting member with respect to the disc body (see paragraphs 0040-41 discussing securing means and disclosing pins).
CLAIM 9: de Sousa discloses a second opening extending between a second surface of the main body and the first opening; a circular groove positioned on the stub shaft; and a retaining pin extending through the second opening and into the first opening such that the retaining pin engages a portion of the groove, thereby releasably securing the cutting member with respect to the disc body (see paragraphs 0040-41; circular groove at base of shaft shown in Fig. 7B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art shows additional art of similar cutting devices where cutting members are secured to the body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK F LAMBE whose telephone number is (571)270-1932. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10-4.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571)270-7741. 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.
/PATRICK F LAMBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights