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 1 objected to because of the following informalities: please change “fourt” to “fourth”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 14 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 14 requires “at least two groups” –i.e. two groups meet the limitation—but later requires two adjacent groups and “other adjacent groups”. It is unclear how many groups are required by the claim. The claim is interpreted as if the “other adjacent groups” are contingent on there being some greater number of groups, and in the case of only two groups, the “other groups” are not part of the broadest reasonable interpretation.
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, 16, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kogler US4162104 which described a transverse cutter head for a mining machine with an outer surface 9 having a plurality of cutting tools (“chisels”-col 2 line 33-35), the tips of the cutting tools define a virtual contour line 10 when rotation is considered; also—as illustrated below—the Kogler patent includes the segments, although they are not explicitly identified by Kogler. Note the second section is called out at the bottom of the figure for clarity. Also at least the first section is substantially straight; and the pitch angles of the first, second1, and third sections are different..
Regarding claim 16: the third section—illustrated below—is substantially straight.
Regarding claim 17: One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the “partial-cut cutting machine” disclosed an illustrated by Kogler is a roadheader; and Kogler described main body 6 boom 2 cutter heads (col. 2 line 33) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 18: col. 1 line 5-7 “swiveled in all directions”
PNG
media_image1.png
771
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 2-7,9-12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kogler US4162104 alone.
Regarding claim 2: as shown above, Kogler anticipates the first and third sections, which clearly have length.
Kogler lacks dimensions and thus does not describe the L3>=2.2xL1—although the illustrations suggest L3 being significantly longer than L1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Kogler was describing the general parameters of the cutter head, and that the ultimate dimensions would have been matters of routine optimization. It would therefore have been obvious to have arrived at the L3>=2.2xL1 as called for in claim 2 as a matter of normal engineering design or routine optimization.
Regarding claim 3:
Kogler lacks dimensions and thus does not describe the L3 being a multiple of L1 in the range of 2.2-2.8—although the illustrations suggest L3 being significantly longer than L1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Kogler was describing the general parameters of the cutter head, and that the ultimate dimensions would have been matters of routine optimization. It would therefore have been obvious to have arrived at the L3 being a multiple of L1 in the range of 2.2-2.8 as called for in claim 3 as a matter of normal engineering design or routine optimization.
Regarding claim 4 as shown above, Kogler also anticipates the second section, which clearly has length.
Kogler lacks dimensions and thus does not describe the L3>=2.2xL2—although the illustrations suggest L3 being significantly longer than L2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Kogler was describing the general parameters of the cutter head, and that the ultimate dimensions would have been matters of routine optimization. It would therefore have been obvious to have arrived at the L3>=2.2xL2 as called for in claim 2 as a matter of normal engineering design or routine optimization.
Regarding claim 5:
Kogler lacks dimensions and thus does not describe the L3 being a multiple of L2 in the range of 2.2-2.8—although the illustrations suggest L3 being significantly longer than L2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Kogler was describing the general parameters of the cutter head, and that the ultimate dimensions would have been matters of routine optimization. It would therefore have been obvious to have arrived at the L3 being a multiple of L2 in the range of 2.2-2.8 as called for in claim5 as a matter of normal engineering design or routine optimization.
Regarding claim 6 as shown above, Kogler also anticipates the fourth section, which clearly has length.
Kogler lacks dimensions and thus does not describe the L3>=2.2xL4—although the illustrations suggest L3 being significantly longer than L4. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Kogler was describing the general parameters of the cutter head, and that the ultimate dimensions would have been matters of routine optimization. It would therefore have been obvious to have arrived at the L3>=2.2xL4 as called for in claim 2 as a matter of normal engineering design or routine optimization.
Regarding claim 5:
Kogler lacks dimensions and thus does not describe the L3 being a multiple of L4 in the range of 2.2-2.8—although the illustrations suggest L3 being significantly longer than L4. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Kogler was describing the general parameters of the cutter head, and that the ultimate dimensions would have been matters of routine optimization. It would therefore have been obvious to have arrived at the L3 being a multiple of L4 in the range of 2.2-2.8 as called for in claim5 as a matter of normal engineering design or routine optimization.
Regarding claim 9: as shown above, Kogler anticipates second section, which has a pitch.
Kogler lacks dimensions and thus does not describe 0.5° >=A2>=-0.5°—although the illustrations suggest A2 being substantially horizontal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Kogler was describing the general parameters of the cutter head, and that the ultimate dimensions would have been matters of routine optimization. It would therefore have been obvious to have arrived at the 0.5° >=A2>=-0.5°as called for in claim 9 as a matter of normal engineering design or routine optimization.
Regarding claim 10: as shown above, Kogler anticipates the third section, which has a pitch.
Kogler lacks dimensions and thus does not describe 28° <=A3<=42° . One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Kogler was describing the general parameters of the cutter head, and that the ultimate dimensions would have been matters of routine optimization. It would therefore have been obvious to have arrived at the 28° <=A3<=42° as called for in claim 10 as a matter of normal engineering design or routine optimization.
Regarding claim 11: as shown above, Kogler anticipates the first section, which has a pitch.
Kogler lacks dimensions and thus does not describe -42° <=A1<=-28° . One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Kogler was describing the general parameters of the cutter head, and that the ultimate dimensions would have been matters of routine optimization. It would therefore have been obvious to have arrived at the -42° <=A1<=-28° as called for in claim 11 as a matter of normal engineering design or routine optimization.
Regarding claim 12: as shown above, Kogler anticipates the fourth section, which has a pitch.
Kogler lacks dimensions and thus does not describe 33° <=A4<=55° . One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Kogler was describing the general parameters of the cutter head, and that the ultimate dimensions would have been matters of routine optimization. It would therefore have been obvious to have arrived at the -33° <=A4<=55° as called for in claim 12 as a matter of normal engineering design or routine optimization.
Regarding claim 15: Kogler shows the tips of the second section at the greatest distance but as Kogler does not describe dimensions, Kogler lacks the contour height to length ratio greater than or equal to 0.3. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Kogler was describing the general parameters of the cutter head, and that the ultimate dimensions would have been matters of routine optimization. It would therefore have been obvious to have arrived at the contour height to length ratio greater than or equal to 0.3 as called for in claim 15 as a matter of normal engineering design or routine optimization.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kogler US4162104 in view of US4285549 Zitz.
Regarding claim 13: Kogler does not described the positioning of the cutting tools and thus lacks the axis of each tool inclined to the outer surface and points towards a rotation direction.
Zitz-in the same field of endeavor-described a road header cutting head with (fig 4-5) each tool 24 inclined to the outer surface and points towards a rotation direction 7 and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that this conventional inclination is so that the tool attacks the rock with its tip.
It would have therefore been obvious to oone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kogler to have the each tool inclined to the outer surface and points towards a rotation direction as required by claim 13.
Regarding claim 14: Kogler does not described the positioning of the cutting tools and thus lacks the within at least one of the first, second, third, and fourth sections there are at least two groups of cutting tools, and each group including at least two tools arranged as claimed.
Zitz-in the same field of endeavor-described a road header cutting head with a section (fig 3: 14 and 17 lie in a single section) having at least two groups of cutting tools 142 (three groups are illustrated) each group 14 including at least two cutting tools (“rows of teeth” is understood to mean at least two in each row or group) arranged such that the tips form a virtual circle (i.e. the dot-dash lines) and the two groups have a distance.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the groups of cutting tools arranged as illustrated by Zitz to the cutter head of Kogler using known methods such as welding and the results would have been predictable because the use of angled cutting bits on rotating heads is well understood. Therefore the combination would have been obvious and claim 14 unpatentable.
Note that this indefinite claim only requires two groups, so the “other adjacent groups” are not a part of the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim. Nonetheless, Zitz illustrates three groups, and the adjacent groups have substantially equal spacing which would have been obvious using the same rationale..
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Janine M KRECK whose telephone number is (571)272-7042. The examiner can normally be reached telework: M-F 0600-1530 EST.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at 5712725405. 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.
/Janine M Kreck/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
1 Examiner recognizes that the second section in Kogler is curved and interprets the pitch angle of that curved section to be the angle of a line segment segment from endpoint to endpoint.
2 the rows of the teeth are represented by dot-and-dash lines 14 (col 4 line 68)
Prosecution Insights