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 .
Drawings
Figures 1-2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to because they contain photocopies of photographs. Pursuant to MPEP 608.02(VII) and 37 C.F.R. 1.84(b), black and white photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, only if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention, which the examiner contends does not apply to the current application.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 7-8, 12-13, 16, 18-19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Friederichs et al. (2021/0095564).
With regard to claim 1, Friederichs discloses a pick tool comprising a holder body (40) comprising a shank (10); a strike body (30) attached to an end of the holder body opposing the shank (fig. 1); and a wear protection body (20) comprising an upper surface (fig. 2), a lower surface (fig. 1), and a throughhole (25) extending from the upper surface to the lower surface through which the shank of the holder body is inserted (figs. 1-2); wherein a ratio of a diameter of the shank adjacent the throughhole of the wear protection body to a thickness of the wear protection body is less than 1.5 (para 0036; wherein a thickness of the wear body is 7mm results in a 2.5mm shank diameter resulting in 0.35 ratio).
With regard to claim 7, Friederichs further discloses the throughhole of the wear protection body is circular (fig. 5).
With regard to claim 8, Friederichs further discloses the wear protection body comprises a cut-out portion (24) adjacent to the throughhole or at a periphery.
With regard to claim 12, Friederichs further discloses the holder body further comprises a head portion from which the shank depends, wherein the strike body is attached to an end of the head portion and the shank depends from an opposing end of the head portion (figs. 1-2).
With regard to claim 13, Friederichs further discloses the upper surface of the wear protection body abuts or is adjacent to an under-side of the head portion of the holder body (fig. 1).
With regard to claim 16, Friederichs further discloses the wear protection body comprises an annular disc (figs. 1-2).
With regard to claim 18, Friederichs further discloses the wear protection body comprises: an upper portion which comprises a sloped surface (via 24); a central portion which comprises the disc (figs. 5-6); and a lower portion which comprises a sloped surface (via 21.2).
With regard to claim 19, Friederichs further discloses the sloped surface of the lower portion is inclined towards the central portion (fig. 6).
With regard to claim 21, Friederichs further discloses the ratio of the diameter of the central portion to the maximum diameter of the lower portion is in a range of about 3 to 1 (figs. 5-6).
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) 1-3, 5-13, 15-17, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. (2008/0036274) in view of Wirtgen Group (“Cold Recycling and Roil Stabilizing Picks – Generation Z”).
With regard to claims 1-2, Hall discloses a pick tool comprising a holder body (300) comprising a shank (301); a strike body (201) attached to an end of the holder body opposing the shank (figs. 2-3, 10-12); and a wear protection body (305) comprising an upper surface (fig. 12), a lower surface (fig. 12), and a throughhole (fig. 12) extending from the upper surface to the lower surface through which the shank of the holder body is inserted (figs. 12).
Hall discloses the thickness of the wear protection body is variable (eg. figs. 11-12; para 0036) to include up to 1 inch (approx. 25mm) however fails to explicitly state the diameter of the shank and therefore fails to explicitly state a ratio of a diameter of the shank adjacent the throughhole of the wear protection body to a thickness of the wear protection body is from about 1.0 to about 1.45.
Wirtgen discloses pick tools with shank diameters of 20mm, 22mm, 25mm (pgs. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hall and utilize a standard pick tool with a shank diameter of 20mm, 22mm, or 25mm (and therefore have a ratio of a diameter of the shank adjacent the throughhole of the wear protection body to a thickness of the wear protection body is from about 1.0 to about 1.45) as taught by Wirtgen, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the predictable result of milling though material with commonly available equipment.
With regard to claim 3, Hall, as modified, further discloses the wear protection body has a Rockwell C hardness of 40-60 (Hall, paras 0036-0037).
With regard to claim 5, Hall, as modified, further discloses the diameter of the shank adjacent the throughhole of the wear protection body is from about 10mm to about 25mm (Wirtgen, pgs. 2-3).
With regard to claim 6, Hall, as modified, further discloses the thickness of the wear protection body is from about 10 mm to about 40 mm (Hall, para 0036).
With regard to claim 7, Hall, as modified, further discloses the throughhole of the wear protection body is circular (Hall; fig. 4).
With regard to claims 8-9, Hall, as modified, further discloses the wear protection body comprises a cut-out portion that is a bevel (Hall, 700, para 0037) adjacent to the throughhole or at a periphery.
With regard to claim 10, Hall, as modified, further discloses the largest linear dimension of the upper surface of the wear protection body and the largest linear dimension of the lower surface of the wear protection body are different (Hall; figs. 7, 12).
With regard to claim 11, Hall, as modified, further discloses the wear protection body comprises a chamfer, curved surface or stepped surface between the upper and lower surfaces (Hall; figs. 7, 12).
With regard to claim 12, Hall, as modified, further discloses the holder body further comprises a head portion from which the shank depends, wherein the strike body is attached to an end of the head portion and the shank depends from an opposing end of the head portion (Hall; fig. 3).
With regard to claim 13, Hall, as modified, further discloses the upper surface of the wear protection body abuts or is adjacent to an under-side of the head portion of the holder body (Hall; fig. 12).
With regard to claim 15, Hall, as modified, further discloses a shape of the under-side of the head portion of the holder body corresponds to a shape of the upper surface of the wear protection body (Hall; fig. 12).
With regard to claim 16, Hall, as modified, further discloses the wear protection body comprises an annular disc (Hall, fig. 4).
With regard to claim 17, Hall, as modified, further discloses the wear protection body comprises a polygonal disc (Hall, figs. 8-9).
With regard to claim 23, Hall, as modified, further discloses the strike body comprises a strike tip formed of a superhard material (Hall; para 0033).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. (2008/0036274) in view of Wirtgen Group (“Cold Recycling and Roil Stabilizing Picks – Generation Z”), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kraemer et al. (2018/0073359).
With regard to claim 14, Hall, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding the upper surface of the wear protection body comprises an annular depression or an annular protrusion, and the under-side of the head portion of the holder body comprises a corresponding annular protrusion or annular depression.
Kraemer discloses a pick tool (eg. figs. 1-4) wherein the upper surface of the wear protection body (47) comprises an annular depression (eg. 31/32) or an annular protrusion, and the under-side of the head (13) portion of the holder body comprises a corresponding annular protrusion (eg. 13.2) or annular depression.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify further modify Hall and utilize complementary engagement of the wear body as taught in Kraemer, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure the components are aligned/centered as desired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN F FIORELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7012. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM 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, 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.
/BENJAMIN F FIORELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
BF
07/10/2026
Prosecution Insights